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.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
I think it's a good amendment, but I want to get clarity from the expert here, Mr. Moffet, on what this means exactly when we talk about principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration. Does that impact the bill in any way?
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
At the moment we're trying to work through the implications; we've just seen this amendment. The changing of the term “prudence” to “précaution” is not at all problematic. It's a clarification of a translation.
Referring to the Rio principle, from a preliminary perspective I think we all agree that would not be a problem either, given that it is the foundation for the way in which the precautionary principle has been interpreted by the Government of Canada for the last couple of decades. I don't think we see any significant operational concerns.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Okay, let me just ask this. “Precautionary principle”, as a term, is defined as principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, so principle 15 will be what is defined.... The two will be equal. Whenever we refer to precautionary principle, it will have the full definition of principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration. Could you read to us what that full definition is, please?
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I don't have that available. I'm not sure if one of my staff does. We can get it quickly, I'm sure, but I can reassure you that principle 15 has been the basis for the approach to the precautionary principle under CEPA from its inception.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
We're talking two different things, Mr. Moffet. We're talking about the definition of “precautionary principle” equalling principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration. I'm not sure—not having seen it, I apologize—if that's all that's included in principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration. That's where I'm seeking clarity.
December 13th, 2022 / 4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I can read principle 15.
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary [principle] shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. 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.
The first sentence is obviously the commitment by states. The second sentence is the definition that was introduced by the Rio Declaration, and you will remark that it is precisely the definition that has been codified in CEPA.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hate to nitpick here, but I wonder if it is common practice in this type of legislation to directly refer to something like a principle in international environmental law such as this, or would it be better to just say what it is? That is, 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.
It's nitpicking maybe, but I'm just wondering if we need to include that reference, as long as we're sure the definition itself is consistent.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
The answer is that it's not standard practice and indeed it could introduce some element of uncertainty to people not familiar with the Rio principles. That said, the basic legal test for referring to external documents is that they need to be clear and they need to be available in Canada's official languages. Of course, that's the case for the Rio Declaration.
To your more general point, it's not necessary, given that the way the principle is codified in CEPA is identical, word for word, to the Rio Declaration.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm just noting that while I appreciate the amendment, I don't think we should be using the language from the Rio Declaration.
As has been argued before, the Stockholm Declaration and others don't use the words “cost-effective”. The Senate purposely took out the word “cost” and was instead moving toward just “effective”.
While I appreciate the motion, I will be voting against it.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
In the English version of the 1999 act, the definition of the Rio Declaration was used. I want to correct 20 years of error by putting “principe de précaution” in the French version. My colleague Ms. Collins is talking about profitability, which is a little further on, but it seems to me that we dealt with that last time.
Earlier, we were wondering what “healthy”, “clean” or “sustainable” meant in terms of the environment. We now have a clear definition, which has been used for 20 years in the English version. I just want us to use the same definition in the French version.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
It's perfectly fair to try to define and to use a definition. What's problematic is that we are giving ascension to the 1992 Rio Declaration in this document. I don't think it is appropriate to include an international treaty within this document.
The definition in and of itself may not be problematic; it's just the inclusion of that declaration on the environment in the document.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Since 1999, the English version of the act has used the definition given in the Rio Declaration. The error lies in the fact that the French version refers to the precautionary principle, which does not exist in the environmental field. Accountants and economists use the precautionary principle.
I therefore move that the act be amended to make the English and French versions consistent. The definition in the Rio Declaration is already in the English version of the 1999 act. It's simply a matter of making a correction to include “principe de précaution” in the French version.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, this is not a substantive amendment. Semantics are important, but these are semantics.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I'm sorry. Do we have any evidence that this is just...?
My understanding of what was said is that it is merely the precautionary principle—the term “principe de précaution”—that is being changed to better reflect the accuracy of the term.
