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 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
We're talking about definitions. I know there has been some discussion related to definitions in previous amendments, and one of the substantive changes that has been brought forward in this bill compared to previous iterations is the conversation around the right to a healthy environment.
Do the officials have comments on this definition, whether it's restrictive, whether it is, in fact, too broad, or whether it has some consequences in the interpretation of how other clauses affect the bill? I think that would be helpful for the committee.
4 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I can start, Mr. Chair.
I would make two points. The main one is that notwithstanding the fact that many countries supported the UN resolution and that many countries have in fact codified various formulations around the right to a clean or a healthy environment, there is no standard approach or understanding of the content and scope of the right.
Indeed, when Canada voted in favour of the resolution, Canada expressly said that work remains under way to develop a common understanding of the right.
The second point I would make is that precisely because of the broad and general terminology being used, the amendments we have introduced in Bill S-5 will require the ministers to develop an implementation framework and to develop that implementation framework through consultation with Canadians. The bill will require that framework, among other things, to clearly explain to Canadians how the government interprets these concepts and how it will apply those interpretations in the various decisions that are made under CEPA.
That's why the bill itself did not include a definition and deferred the approach to defining and unpacking the concepts to the implementation framework.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there anyone else?
I saw Madame Pauzé, Madam Collins and Mr. McLean.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Personally, I find what Mr. Moffet just told us interesting.
In two years, people will have discussed it, and regulations will indeed be put in place. Currently, it's not a right that is actually included in the act. So I find it interesting to justify it or to detail it in that way, because it shows that we need to include definitions in the act, since there aren't enough of them.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Moffet, you had said some countries had supported it. My understanding was that it was a unanimously approved motion around the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment that passed last year, and that 150 countries around the world are implementing legislation around the right to a healthy environment.
Do you have any specific concerns about including the words “clean” and “sustainable” in this definition, when we heard from Dr. Boyd, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, that this was critical language?
4:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
First of all, you have my apologies. I shouldn't have used the word “some”.
You're correct. The resolution was widely adopted, recognizing the strong support globally for the importance of providing for a clean and healthy environment. The terminology we've included in Bill S-5 reflects the emerging international terms.
The issue we have at the moment is one of not knowing precisely how the implementation framework will define the concepts. We don't want to inadvertently set limits on our approach or require the approach to address issues that might be inappropriate under CEPA. It's really a question of.... The approach is to adopt the concept and then spend time discussing with Canadians exactly what it means and how it will be implemented under the act.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm wondering if there would be language to define this that includes “clean, healthy and sustainable” and would allay your concerns about limiting the definition. What if it had something along the lines of “the healthy environment includes an environment that is clean, healthy and sustainable” or “includes but is not limited to”?
I'm curious as to how including the words “clean” and “sustainable” would cause problems in an implementation framework. I assume the government wants to include those concepts, given the recommendations we heard from Dr. Boyd and given the unanimous support from countries in the United Nations.
4:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
At this point all I can say is that various countries have defined the concepts differently. They have started with the same term, “healthy environment” or “clean environment”, and then developed further definitions that are not all the same.
Given that there isn't a clear and consistent approach, the approach that's codified in the bill at the moment is to start with this general terminology and then unpack it through a public process to develop an implementation framework.
I don't know if I can elaborate much more than that. I apologize.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Just as a last comment, I hope we can support moving forward with this language. It doesn't seem to me that it would limit the definition. If it does, then I hope people who have concerns with it would maybe amend it to use language that would be open, but would still include these critical pieces.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
I'm glad we talked about the implementation framework, because what is lacking in anything the United Nations puts forward is the implementation in jurisdictions that have the responsibility to do something of this nature. It is a bit of a paper tiger in that respect.
I want to look at the conundrum that we're talking about here, because we are putting something on paper that is a definition to be looked at going forward.
I want to address “clean”. Most of us here would say that “clean” would represent a lack of bacteria, and “healthy” might mean a lack of viruses, and “sustainable” would mean exactly the contrary, because the environment isn't sustained without some viruses and some bacteria. As a matter of fact, it's one of the phyla that make up a large portion of the earth, yet it's not considered to be clean to have a bunch of bacteria floating around in the environment. At least, most people, in interpreting this definition, wouldn't think so.
That's the conundrum I have, this whole classification of each of these three words that don't really jive together at all when you analyze them, and what people are going to interpret them to mean.
Are we going to say, yes, this is clean, or yes, this is healthy, or yes, this is sustainable? The three don't exist together.
December 13th, 2022 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Could we call the vote?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I put it after line 32.
Our clerk must have sent you the definition in the Rio Declaration. This follows up on the discussion we had on Friday, when we wanted to define the precautionary principle in accordance with principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which dates back to 1992. It states, “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.”
Do I need to discuss this further? I have done so extensively in the past week.
The English version of the 1999 act uses the definition given in the Rio Declaration. The error is in the French version, and this corrects the error.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal