Evidence of meeting #51 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 subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's why there were questions around that.
Shall we go to a vote on NDP-2?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to BQ-0.1.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, I will be brief.
When we started the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, we spent at least 20 minutes saying that we needed to be as consistent as possible with the Rio declaration, and that is what my amendment does.
The problem is in the French version. We need to use the right words—that is, words that reflect what the English version says.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any questions or comments?
We'll go to a vote.
I'm sorry. Did you have your hand up?
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm looking through my email to find amendment BQ-0.1.
My concern with the original motion that wasn't tabled was around the “cost effective” language. I'm seeing here that this is just “effective measures”, so this seems very supportable.
Is that right? Am I on the wrong one? Darn it.
Okay, I have BQ-0.1. When I look at it, I see one change to “précaution”, and then I also see highlighted in blue “mesures effectives”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is that what is being proposed for “cost effective”?
I have been thinking about this since you brought it up before Christmas, Ms. Pauzé. Normally, when it comes to French, I defer to you.
Mr. Deltell, go ahead.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Can the subject matter experts explain the difference between the words “prudence” and “précaution”? These people are neutral and objective, but more importantly, they have a lot of legislative knowledge.
Ms. Pauzé did a great job of explaining the position in light of previously adopted legislation, but I would like to hear from legislative experts and departmental experts.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
When we talked about this text a few months ago, we insisted on using the word "prudence" because it was used throughout the rest of the Act. However, when the committee passed a definition of the precautionary principle, it used the word "précaution". Furthermore, in the English version, the word "cost-effective" is used and, in the French version, the words "mesures effectives" are used.
The definition passed by the committee includes "cost-effective" in English, and "mesures effectives" in French; "precautionary principle" in English, and "principe de précaution" in French. The preamble now uses "cost-effective" in English, and "mesures effectives" in French. Lastly, we use "precautionary principle" in English, and the current amendment would replace "prudence" by "précaution".
Two clauses in Bill S‑5 still use the word "prudence" instead of "précaution", but they can be changed later.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
If I’ve understood your explanation correctly, it’s an issue of correlation and consistency with the rest of the Act.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes, that’s it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Pauzé, if I understand correctly, the committee already agreed on this wording. Is that right?
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, Ms. Farquharson explained it very well.
You may recall my little rant from a few months ago. In the French version of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, it refers to the precautionary principle and cost-effective measures. That is what is in the Rio Declaration, which is based on…
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I’m told we didn’t.
So this is the first time we’re using this language in Bill S‑5. Is that right?
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
At some point, we’ll have to make the wording consistent to fix a mistake from 20 years ago.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I wanted to put on the record again that I am not in favour of the English version of this. Including “cost-effective” rather than “effective”, I think, is undermining some important principles.
However, I support the change that Madame Pauzé has suggested for the French version, so I will be voting in favour.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
In that case, we will proceed to the vote.
(Amendment agreed to: 11 yeas; 0 nay.)
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Amendment BQ‑1 proposes that Bill S‑5, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 2 with the following:
when they are economically and technically viable, and the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances;
The intent remains to tighten up the legislation in favour of the health of citizens and the environment.
