Environment committee  —no diminution of any environmental protection that has already been established. It doesn't set a bar that needs to be attained—

Environment committee  It says once we've attained a bar, we don't move backwards.

Environment committee  I'll start. I might need to be supported by my colleagues. The basic difference I want to bring to your attention is the difference between giving a right to future generations versus putting an obligation on current decision-makers to account for the interests of future generat

Environment committee  I'd like to turn to my colleague Laura Farquharson.

Environment committee  My comment on this will be similar to one that I made earlier in the meeting, which was that this would fundamentally change the scope of the right that is articulated in the bill, which at the moment is focused on individuals, people, and it would confer that right on humans as

Environment committee  I don't think I have anything more that I can add to the extensive discussion on this topic today.

Environment committee  I think the short answer is that we don't know, so it would create uncertainty because you would have the same term defined in different ways in the same statute. I'm reluctant to speculate, but I think we can say that it would create some uncertainty as to the way in which the v

Environment committee  I think the concern that I'm articulating is that we would have what was intended to be the same obligation associated with various decisions under the act now subject to different legal obligations, or at least differently defined legal obligations. I think the concern is that

Environment committee  Go ahead, Laura.

Environment committee  The short answer is “yes” with regard to CEPA and other statutes. Certainly in CEPA the terms appear at least four other times. In some cases, it's in provisions that have not been amended by Bill S-5 and are therefore not open to this committee to amend.

Environment committee  I'm suggesting that in order to be consistent, that would be the appropriate consequence so that the same terms are used consistently throughout the act and then, ideally, throughout all federal statutes.

Environment committee  Mr. Chair, I just want to make the observation that these terms have been used consistently in multiple federal statutes since the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in the manner in which they currently appear in CEPA. One possible consequence of amending CEPA with

Environment committee  Mr. Chair, I'm happy to provide an explanation for—

Environment committee  MP May is correct in that the bill would slightly amend the preamble, essentially by removing reference to virtual elimination because virtual elimination is codified—well, defined—in the current CEPA, and there is a codified set of requirements regarding virtual elimination. As

Environment committee  I think my role is to explain the consequences of the amendment. In this case, the amendment would change the scope of the right in the bill considerably. It's contrary to the entire approach that's been taken in drafting these provisions. The bill proposes that the right wou