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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Alexandre Longpré
Laura Farquharson  Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

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.

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?

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”.

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.

12:30 p.m.

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.

12:30 p.m.

Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

Laura Farquharson

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.

12:35 p.m.

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.

12:35 p.m.

Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

Laura Farquharson

Yes, that’s it.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Ms. Pauzé, if I understand correctly, the committee already agreed on this wording. Is that right?

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…

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Did we already adopt this wording?

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

We…

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?

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Yes.

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Very well.

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

At some point, we’ll have to make the wording consistent to fix a mistake from 20 years ago.

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Agreed.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

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.

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Mr. McLean, do you have something?

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

No.

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

In that case, we will proceed to the vote.

(Amendment agreed to: 11 yeas; 0 nay.)

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We will now move on to amendment BQ‑1.

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.