All those abstaining, please rise.

Thank you, committee. The results of the recorded vote: all those in favour, three, all those opposed, eight, abstaining, one. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Clause 19.

Agreed. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. The purpose of this motion is to add a couple more items to the list of subject matter for the annual report that the Minister is going to table in the Legislative Assembly. Right now, the Minister will report on investigations, prosecutions, actions, the disposition of any money, convictions for offences under this act, so it is a very short list of what is to be reported on. What has happened here is some improvements to the bill as I mentioned earlier. One of the big improvements, in my view, and I want to give the department credit for this is this idea of a statement of environmental values. That is to be developed now through a public process by the executive council, is to help guide decision-making in the future, maybe on a case-by-case basis.

How is anybody supposed to know how that is actually implemented? The purpose of this is to get the Minister to provide some information on how the statement of environmental values is actually implemented. Standing committees have spent a lot of time reviewing a number of bills before us, and in some cases, creating long lists of items to be included in annual reports to make sure that the public is informed, that there is a record of important decisions and things that are done under legislation. Because this is an important addition to the bill, I felt it was something that can and should be added to the annual report requirements. I don't think this has to be an exhaustive list of every time the statement of environmental values have been used. It can and should be at a high level to give the public some confidence that the statement of environmental values is actually being used and implemented in some fashion.

The motion would require that there would be some documentation around the steps to prepare or amend the statement of environment values, and then, how it is actually being implemented or used. I think this is, again, a helpful amendment that would improve understanding of how the act, the bill, when it comes into force, is actually being used. I expect and look towards all of my colleagues to support this improvement. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion?

Question has been called. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would request a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Question.

Question has been called. The Member has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise. The results of the recorded vote: 5 in favour, 8 opposed, no abstentions.

---Defeated

---Clauses 19 through 22 inclusive approved

Clause 23. Any motions? Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill 39 be amended by adding the following immediately preceding the heading preceding section 23:

Review of Act

22.2 (1) This act must be reviewed by the Minister within 18 months after the commencement of the 20^th Legislative Assembly.

(2) the Minister shall table in the Legislative Assembly a report on the results of a review conducted under subsection (1) at the earliest opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. In my remarks earlier I mentioned that this bill has been in place for 29 years. It is not very well-used. What has happened in those 29 years is that the concept of environmental rights has evolved. I mentioned how 149 of 193 countries in the world now have constitutional recognition of environmental rights in one form or another. Unfortunately, Canada is not one of those countries.

I also talked about how expectations were raised by the department during the public consultations of the bill around matters like definitions of a right to healthy environment, public trust, and so on. That would certainly, in the eyes of some of the people who appeared before the standing committee, create an expectation that there might be more of a rights-based approach to environmental rights in this bill. That is not really what we got, but certainly, around the world, this is an area of evolving law, and a lot of jurisdictions are moving towards this environmental rights-based approach.

Given that this bill has only very infrequently, only once, ever been reviewed, this is an area of evolving law that some things were promised and perhaps not delivered, committee felt, or at least I felt, that it would be important to put a checkpoint in the future where there could be some reconsideration of the review of the bill or the act and its implementation to allow for a considered review of it and see if further improvements could be made.

This would require a review in 2025, six years down the road. It is a one-time review, all at the Minister's discretion, and would require that the Minister table a report in the House. This doesn't have to be a huge onerous exercise, maybe even not as onerous as the exercise that the department went through in proposing the changes in what is before us.

As a one-time review in this area of evolving law, I would hope that Members would see fit to agree that this is something reasonable to insert into the bill.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion. Mr. Testart.