Environment Committee on March 9th, 2023

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, there's the issue of reasonable limits, but as I recall, the Green Party had proposed an amendment that listed just about each and every group, except white men between this age and that age. It was very restrictive, so the idea behind my amendment is to take all the factors into account and extend the right to everyone.

Obviously, reasonable limits will have to be set. I assume there will probably be economic consequences, for instance, and it will be up to people to make a clear determination as to what is reasonable and what isn't. The point I'd like to make, however, is that Bill S‑5 is limited to social, health, scientific and economic factors, but there could be others. That's why paragraph 5.1(2)(c), as proposed in my amendment, would broaden that. There isn't a right if people are excluded. The purpose is to have the amendment cover everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are there any other questions or comments?

Please go ahead, officials.

[Laura Farquharson]

I'm not sure I have much to add.

The original said that the framework should elaborate on the “reasonable limits” to which the right is subject, resulting from consideration of relevant factors, including social, health, scientific and economic factors. Now that's been amended to say that the relevant factors are taken into account in interpreting and applying the right and determining the limits. That's the change.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Does that make any difference?

[Laura Farquharson]

Yes, I think so. There's lots to think through with this implementation framework, but on its face, it's saying that social, health, scientific and economic factors are relevant to interpreting what the right to a healthy environment means. You'll recall that we talked about some of the principles that underline the right, like environmental justice. It's saying that's relevant to the definition of the right, and any limits as well.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Shall we go to a vote on BQ-3 as amended?

By the way, I should mention that if it's adopted as amended, NDP-10 can't be tabled.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are now on CPC‑2.

Who would like to move it?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Walk me through this.

Mr. Chair, we've already made amendments to this paragraph. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

G-6 was negatived.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

All right.

We're looking here at the whole definition: “the principles to be considered in the administration of this Act, such as principles of environmental justice—including the avoidance of adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations—the principle of non-regression and the principle of intergenerational equity”. I know we attempt to define these terms, but in effect we only define half of these terms because “intergenerational equity” also means all the benefits that we're adding to generations who come after us.

I'm quite concerned that unless the definition has been expanded, and I'll seek the officials input on that, the intergenerational equity is.... It's not a regression. We're not moving backwards, I get it, but intergenerational equity, in the way it has been defined here, is looking at one side of the equation only: the harm we're potentially doing to the next generation or a generation after that. At the same time, we also need to consider the benefit we're giving to every generation that follows. I would like to either see the definition expanded or this term removed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Ms. Collins is next.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I just wanted to draw my colleague's attention to the next amendment, NDP-8, which we'll vote on immediately after this one and which I hope answers some of those questions. It would be replacing line 9 on page 4 with the following:

intergenerational equity, according to which it is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;

It's really fleshing out that definition.

I hear that likely this won't address the concern about how future generations are benefiting from some of these issues, but I think it does speak to what the Canadian Environmental Protection Act really needs to do, which is to protect both the people who are living right now and the people who will come after us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before we go to Mr. Weiler, I don't know if I mentioned it, but if this amendment is adopted, NDP-8 can't be moved.

Mr. Weiler, go ahead.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I think there might be a bit of confusion on this one.

When we're looking at this, there are a few things. It's talking about the “principles” and “including the avoidance of adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations”. That's one. Also, then, we're talking separately about “the principle of non-regression and the principle of intergenerational equity”, so potentially, depending on how the minister wants to interpret this, it could very well consider the matters that Mr. McLean brought up.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, “depending on how the minister wants to interpret this”...?

Mr. Weiler, we're supposed to understand what this is saying, not have it open to some kind of ministerial interpretation.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

If I may, that's in the next clause that's going to be coming up, when we're talking about NDP-8.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Shall we go to a vote?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I'm trying to limit my comments, but on this particular amendment, remember what you have now called paragraph (b), but which was paragraph (c). We already have that it's subject to “reasonable limits”, and that includes economic factors.

When you're talking about economic factors, you're not talking about economic factors today. Most people actually look forward when they're doing any kind of analysis of economic factors and do the net present value of those. I would say that your concern is already addressed in that “reasonable limits” section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[An hon. member]

Can we talk?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. Let's break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call the meeting back to order.

We shall proceed to a vote on CPC-2.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])