SoVote

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Oct/7/22 10:31:32 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, indeed, when we conducted the committee report in, I believe, 2017, I was a staffer, and all parties worked very closely together on the work at the environment committee at that time. When the member was giving his speech, I thought back to the long discussions we had in 2017 on the role of toxic chemicals and management, and some of the recommendations put forward on the chemicals management plan, which allowed for any Canadian to submit data, evidence and arguments for consideration under that plan. Would Bill S-5 allow for more citizen participation in environmental concerns as recommended by the committee in recommendation 24?

108 words

All Topics

Mr. John Aldag

Oct/7/22 10:32:34 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and neighbour from British Columbia for his question and for his work on the committee report. As he said, he was a staffer at the time and had great input, and it is a pleasure to see him now representing his constituents in the House. On the question of the whole citizen engagement piece, I think there are aspects within the bill where citizen action can be taken. Complaints can be relayed to the minister. We have heard from environmental groups that they see opportunities to strengthen that aspect of the legislation. As we have these debates in the House and as we take the legislation to committee, there will be opportunities to look at further citizen engagement as we look at having a healthier environment and protecting public health.

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Oct/7/22 10:33:26 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the current bill is the same as Bill C-28, which was introduced in the previous Parliament. Does my colleague know why the government chose to call an election before passing the bill? Was it because, for the government, getting a majority was more important than this environmental legislation, or does he think it was because the government needed to get the hon. member re-elected to make it easier to pass the bill?

77 words

All Topics

Mr. John Aldag

Oct/7/22 10:33:58 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, regrettably, I was not here in the 43rd Parliament, but I was here in the 42nd Parliament when I did work on the committee report. However, I am delighted to be back and to be part of the discussions in the 44th Parliament as we try to bring home the much-needed changes to CEPA, which is why I am so delighted to see Bill S-5 before the House today, having had the Senate consider it and I think strengthen the legislation. I am happy to be here as part of the debates today.

97 words

All Topics

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Oct/7/22 10:34:31 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honour to be able to speak to Bill S-5 today. I thought I would start off my remarks by pointing out the major differences between the Conservative record on the environment and the Liberal record on the environment. Conservatives, of course, have a much stronger record when it comes to tackling environmental issues than Liberals. Looking back at the previous Conservative governments and our major achievements, including the clean air act, which was a landmark piece of legislation to tackle various forms of pollution and to develop a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there were massive investments in conservation. The root word of Conservative is to conserve. That ties in with conservation. The previous Conservative government had many instances where we indicated much of Canada's natural beauty in our landscape for conservation projects to make sure that future generations would be able to enjoy the wonderful environment that has been passed on to us, protecting wetlands and vulnerable ecosystems for both plant and wildlife. That was a hallmark aspect of the previous Conservative government's achievements when it came to environmental action. Major investments in innovation funds to help tackle some of the challenging aspects of having a robust, industrialized country, while at the same time, minimizing our environmental footprint, ensuring that there are resources available for companies and for not-for-profits to access some of that research funding to come up with better ways of doing things, better ways of making things and producing things here to lower all of the different kinds of impacts on the environment, that was a hallmark piece of the previous government's record on the environment as well. I should mention as well that under the previous Conservative government, because of our strong action on things like emissions and tackling climate change, CO2 emissions actually went down. We actually reduced the amount of CO2 that Canada emitted into the atmosphere under the previous Conservative government. What has it done under the current Liberal government? It has gone up. That is the major difference between Conservatives and Liberals. The Liberals are very good at talking about things. I have to give them credit. They have an actor for a leader and he is very good at getting into the parts and delivering the lines, but when it comes to action, they are not so good. He is very good acting, but not so much at action. Think about the very first thing the Liberal government did, one of the very initial things, while the ink was still wet on all those cabinet appointments and they were all just learning where their new offices would be and who was going to drive their cars. The very first thing that they did was to grant a permit to the City of Montreal to dump billions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. It is unbelievable. After all the talk they did during the election pretending to care about the environment, the first thing they did was grant that permit. How gross is that? We are talking about toxic substances here in this bill. What about the toxic substances that were unleashed into the St. Lawrence and ultimately into the oceans all around the world by the Liberal government? It was the first thing it did. The government's hallmark piece is a carbon tax that we now know does not work. It has had the carbon tax in place since its first term in office. It has gone up every year, and so too have emissions. It is not an environmental plan at all; it is a tax plan. Remember too that the Liberal government has been completely dishonest with Canadians about that piece. Yes, they were dishonest. I will remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North about the dishonesty of one of his former colleagues. Just before the 2019 election, the former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, promised Canadians that the carbon tax would not go up. In fact, we Conservatives warned Canadians that we had information from the Department of the Environment that the government was planning to increase the carbon tax. Catherine McKenna, the former environment minister, was deployed to accuse Conservatives of spreading misinformation, saying it is never going to happen. Of course, their friends in the government-subsidized media were only too happy to carry that message for them. They asked how the Conservatives could make up such a wild accusation that the Liberals might raise a tax, and we said it is because that is what their information and their own documents show and if we look at their modelling, in order to even try to hit the targets they have set for themselves, they are going to have to increase the carbon tax. The response from their friends in the government-subsidized media was that it is not true because the Liberals say so. After seven years of Liberal rule, members will pardon those of us in the official opposition if we do not take Liberals at their word. In the last Parliament, we were talking about toxic substances. I had a private member's bill to ban that practice of dumping raw sewage into our vulnerable ecosystems, our rivers, lakes and oceans. Putting an end to the practice of municipalities dumping sewage into our rivers, lakes and oceans is a central element of the environmental plan the Conservatives have been promising since 2019. It is now 2022, and it is time to put an end to this practice. It is 2022. We have the technology and resources to make sure that municipalities are not doing that with untreated waste water, but the Liberals, the NDP, members of the Bloc Québécois, all voted against that common-sense measure. Members will pardon those of us in the Conservative Party when we receive a piece of legislation that claims to address environmental issues and we have major concerns about everything the Liberals do on this. Bill S-5 is not before this House in its original form. Bill S-5 went through the Senate first, so the piece of legislation that we are dealing with today has been amended by the Senate. There are many concerning things about these amendments and there are some concerning things about the bill in general. First is the amendment on the right to a healthy environment. Of course, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has pointed out the lack of clarity about that, the lack of provisions that would make any of that enforceable or anything that would give Canadians comfort to know that the government would follow up a platitude with a piece of action. It is undefined and very ambiguous, and when legislation is ambiguous, it really sets us up for litigation. Often there are competing interests when it comes to environmental issues between industry and conservation groups or municipalities that might be affected by one thing or another, and it is essential that we have clarity on these types of things. Otherwise, we get long-drawn-out court battles to decide what word means what and where lines get drawn. If the government was going to bring in this piece of legislation, the least it could have done was clear up that ambiguity and not leave it for the courts and lawyers, but of course Liberals often do things that make lots of money for lawyers to settle things in court. I also want to touch on another major flaw with the thinking behind the government as it relates to toxic substances. Henry Hazlitt wrote an excellent book about economics primarily, but it is a lesson that we should apply in every aspect of life. The book is called Economics in One Lesson and the main theme of this book is to convince people to think about both the things that are seen and the things that are unseen. In other words, it is to not just look at the superficial aspects of what is being proposed, but to really take a step back and consider all the aspects of what a decision or a course of action might result in. That is not something that the government has done with many of its environmental policies, specifically when it comes to the listing of plastics in one of the schedules of this bill. Obviously, we want less plastic in our oceans and we want less plastic in our waterways, but we have just come out of a pandemic where plastic was essential in protecting Canadians. Plastic was essential in packaging to keep germs out of everything from utensils to pieces of equipment. Lots of aspects of PPE have plastics in them. Imagine where we might be in the future if many of the pieces of this legislation are enforced and make it harder to access those types of what we now know to be life-saving materials. We urge the government to take a closer look at that aspect of it. When we look at plastics around the world and in our oceans, it is Canada that has been leading the way for years to reduce our output of those pieces of material. In fact, 93% of the plastic that ultimately ends up in our oceans comes from just 10 rivers. Ten rivers around the world are responsible for 93% of the plastic in our oceans. How many of those rivers do my colleagues think are in Canada? The answer is zero. The hon. member for Essex got it right. None of those rivers is in Canada. Seven of them are in Asia, including the Yangtze in China, and two are in Africa. Why is that important? When we take a step back and look at the government's entire environmental policy, we see policies designed to drive production out of Canada, where we have high environmental standards and rules about what can be put in landfills and dumped into rivers. Those policies drive production to other jurisdictions around the world that do not have those measures in place. The carbon tax is the biggest culprit in that. The carbon tax raises the cost of making things here in Canada, and our competitors around the world, specifically China, which does not have a carbon tax or anywhere near the environmental protection Canada has, go out and bid on contracts to make things. When they do, when those plastics are manufactured in China, in Asia, in developing countries that do not yet have our robust regime around environmental protection, then more things get produced there and more things end up in our oceans. Liberals might go around and feel like they are doing something for the planet because they brought in a carbon tax and they are banning plastics here in Canada, and the net result of that is more plastic in the ocean. Their policies are actually doing more harm than good. They also do not look at the entire life cycle of alternatives to plastics. A landmark study was done in 2018 by the Independent Institute, based out of Oakland, and it found that plastic bans can actually have a negative impact on the environment as people substitute other products that have more emissions involved in their life cycle. For example, the difference in manufacturing between a plastic straw and a paper straw is very significant when we look at the amount of energy needed and the amount of CO2 emissions produced. It takes 39 kilojoules of energy to make one plastic straw. In the entire life cycle of that straw, production, usage and all that, it emits 1.5 grams of CO2. For a paper straw, it takes 96 kilojoules to make it. That is more than double the amount of energy. Because the methods involved in all the aspects of producing that paper straw are more energy intensive, it actually produces 4.1 grams of CO2. A plastic straw produces 1.5 grams and a paper straw 4.1 grams of CO2. Again, on the one hand the Liberals say they are trying to take action on reducing emissions, and on the other hand they are bringing in policies that actually increase emissions. That is the hallmark of Liberal governments in general. They offer simplistic, sloganistic solutions, and the effects of their policies do more harm than good. Conservatives are going to be studying this piece of legislation very carefully. We are going to be working very hard at committee to make improvements to the bill on many of the problematic amendments that came from the Senate. I hope my colleagues across the way will remember one thing. If they truly care about things like reducing emissions, then now is the time for them to abandon their carbon tax. It has been so ineffective. So many Canadians want to see real action on climate change, and the carbon tax is not just making things more expensive; it is actually driving production out from here in Canada. That production then moves overseas and emissions go up. A molecule of CO2 does not need a passport to travel around the planet. A unit of CO2 that moves away from Canada and doubles because of the lack of protection in countries like China actually results in more CO2 in the atmosphere. Because the Liberals are so locked in on this failed policy of imposing this new tax on Canadians, they are not taking the meaningful action that they could take. It is called an opportunity cost. They have all the people at the Department of the Environment enforcing this tax and imposing it on provinces that have not adopted it, and because they are using all those human resources and all the government's time and energy on a failed policy that is only resulting in higher emissions, they are not taking other measures that could actually lower emissions. If they truly care about the environment, now is the time to scrap the carbon tax, especially when we link it to the affordability crisis, because it is not just the carbon tax of today. It is not just that Catherine McKenna was lying when she said that they were not going to increase the carbon tax in 2019. It is that the Liberals are going to triple the carbon tax in the coming months and years. It means that the affordability crisis that is hurting Canadians so much is only to get worse, and the environmental crisis that the Liberals claim they are trying to address will only get worse as well.

2448 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/7/22 10:50:56 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, allow me to pick up on the questions that the member just made reference to. I can appreciate that when he was the leader, the Conservative Party was against the price on pollution. However, I would remind the member that the leader who followed him actually reversed the Conservative Party position on the price of pollution. In fact every Conservative member of today's Conservative caucus campaigned and knocked on doors saying that they were in favour of a price on pollution, as dictated by the then leader of the Conservative Party. It is only under the new leadership of the current leader that they have flip-flopped once again. However, Conservatives still made a commitment, a promise to Canadians, that they supported the principles of a price on pollution. Does the member feel any obligation whatsoever to Canadians, given that his party had a platform that supported a price on pollution? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

159 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/7/22 10:51:54 a.m.
Watch

I am not sure if those are comments or if members are trying to answer the question, but I would ask them to hold off. I know that the hon. House leader for the official opposition is very capable of answering questions or making comments. If I have not recognized you, then you should not be talking. The hon. official opposition House leader.

63 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Oct/7/22 10:52:17 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is completely mistaken about that. Members of the Conservative Party have always opposed the carbon tax; that has not changed. I have pointed out to this member in this past that Liberals like to play around with language. They are fond of saying “a price” on pollution. A price is something that the market sets. A price is something that is determined by input costs and supply and demand. The most important thing is that a price is something that we have a choice to pay. If I do not like the price of an apple at one store, I can try to get a better price at a different store, or I can eat pears instead of apples, or I can look for alternatives. I do not have to spend the money. When the government sets a price, enforces its collection, and there is no choice, that is called a tax. It will always be a tax, and Liberal games with wordplay will not fool Canadians.

174 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Oct/7/22 10:53:23 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I have to say that his comments about plastics were hair-raising. One of his colleagues actually introduced a private member's bill to ban the export of Canadian plastics to places such as the Philippines and India. Of course, our plastics do not end up in the water, but we send them to places that do not have the means to recycle them. I just wanted to point that out. Would my colleague support the idea of strengthening industry regulations in the context of the bill before us now?

100 words

All Topics

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Oct/7/22 10:54:10 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. The member raises a very important issue, and that is the other types of effects of making regulations here in Canada and looking at only one aspect of it. She rightly points out that many regulatory changes over the years have made it harder to process, recycle and break down plastic here in Canada. Because of those rules, which are put in place without thinking about the effects, we have driven a lot of that type of operation to other countries. In addition to displacing production here, that has also had the effect of moving some of the recycling and other ways to break down that plastic to other countries as well. It is an important issue to raise, not only when we contemplate all the unintended consequences of what may be well-meaning measures here, but looking at the entire aspect of the knock-on effects in other countries as well.

162 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Oct/7/22 10:55:12 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy some of the fantasy speeches I hear in this House, and I thank the member for providing us with one today. I understand that in 2007, the environment committee studied CEPA, which is probably something very important because it has not been reviewed in over 20 years. We now have a bill before us that would improve it a bit, but we still have a long way to go. We know that the Conservatives wrote a dissenting report sharing concerns about enshrining the right to a healthy environment and consideration of vulnerable populations, which we know is one of the most concerning parts of this bill. Is the Conservative Party still not interested in enshrining the right to a healthy environment or protecting vulnerable populations who are impacted most heavily?

135 words

All Topics

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Oct/7/22 10:56:09 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the hon. member must not have been listening to the part of my speech where I was talking about the major achievements of the previous Conservative government when it came to real, tangible and practical improvements to the environment. Of course, we all believe in protecting vulnerable communities, and there are many very sensitive ecosystems here in Canada. There are also very sensitive ecosystems around the world, which are all linked together. That is why it is so concerning, when we take that step back and look at all the effects of the changes here domestically, when we see it has an increased negative impact on everything from emissions to the amount of plastics that are being thrown out into the garbage and landfills, which end up in rivers and lakes. As I pointed out, 93% of the plastic in the oceans comes from those 10 rivers, none of which are in Canada. That is why Conservatives are urging the government to do that comprehensive, holistic review to make sure that regulatory and legislative changes here do not actually do more harm than good.

186 words

All Topics

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

Oct/7/22 10:57:28 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned a lot of accomplishments and things that were done in a positive manner, and also mentioned the shortcomings of the current government. Can he elaborate on the wastewater treatment standards that were put in place by the previous Conservative government, which he was a part of? The Liberal government, under the former minister of environment, the member for North Vancouver, actually delayed the imposition of those standards decades down the road, which enabled wastewater to continue being dumped into our precious lakes, rivers and oceans here in Canada.

93 words

All Topics

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Oct/7/22 10:58:15 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague makes an excellent point. The previous Conservative government raised standards significantly for wastewater treatment, to make sure that the water that is being processed and ultimately released into our ecosystem is only released after strenuous treatment. Not only did we raise the standards, but we were there to help municipalities raise their standards and make the investments they needed into their wastewater facilities. My hon. colleague is right. We were there as full partners, not just on increasing the standards, but also in being there for municipalities. I pointed out that it is 2022 and there are still major cities in this country that are dumping raw sewage into our waterways, cities that have budgets worth hundreds of millions of dollars. We really challenge municipalities when they come and object to tougher standards on wastewater. We want to make sure they consider the negative impacts they are having on the environment and that they are taking advantage of the infrastructure funding that previous governments have allocated to help them do just that.

177 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Oct/7/22 10:59:32 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his very entertaining speech. It was a bit of fiction, I would say. My memory of the Harper record is a little different from his. It withdrew from the Kyoto climate accord, did absolutely nothing on climate change for 10 long years and closed the IISD experimental lakes area. Then there was the war on science and muzzling scientists. Will the hon. member work with us on Bill S-5 to strengthen the bill and work in the spirit that the standing committee did in 2017?

96 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Oct/7/22 11:00:17 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is not that we have a difference of memory. It is that he has not read the black and white ink on the reports showing that his government has a terrible record on emissions. The first thing it did was allow raw sewage to be dumped in the St. Lawrence. It is not a matter of debate. It is not my opinion versus his opinion. This is from looking through the archives and looking at the actual record. When it comes to working at committee, I can assure the hon. member that we will approach the committee work in good faith to truly try to improve this bill.

111 words

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tecumseh, Lib.)

Oct/7/22 11:00:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today marks 22 days since the death of Mahsa Amini, a brave young woman who was beaten to death by Iran's so-called morality police over the country's hijab laws. Since then, hundreds of thousands of Iranians worldwide have rallied for the values of freedom, including in my home riding of Windsor—Tecumseh. However, despite the outpouring of international support, the criminal Iranian regime continues to arrest and murder its own people in the streets and on campuses. As we prepare to mark the International Day of the Girl Child, we remember Mahsa Amini. We repeat her name to keep the memory of her spirit alive and so that the tyrants of Iran can never hide from their moral corruption and horrendous crimes. We stand with the brave women and men of Iran who are undeterred. I say this to all the people of Iran: We see them, we hear them and we will always stand with them. Zan, zendegi, azadi.

166 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Oct/7/22 11:01:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, thankfully life is returning to normal for most Canadians. For those who chose not to get vaccinated, the ability to work and travel abroad has been reinstated. However, this is not the case for everyone. Those who serve in our Canadian Armed Forces continue to be punished by an unfair and unscientific vaccine mandate. Canadians are rightly proud of our armed forces, but I believe they are being misled on how our national security is now at risk. While the government claims the mandates protect our operational readiness, the opposite is true. Whether it is due to forced releases or negative reactions to the vaccine, many service members, including fighter pilots, have been grounded. Pilots represent years and millions of dollars of intensive training thrown aside because of a decision to punish them for exercising their own medical choices. Coupled with sky-high attrition rates, it is beginning to feel like another decade of darkness. These are our heroes. We owe them the dignity of service for which they have sacrificed so much. It is time for the government to end the vaccine mandates and restore those it has wronged within our Canadian Armed Forces.

197 words

All Topics

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, Lib.)

Oct/7/22 11:03:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to wish my constituents in Halifax West and all Canadians a blessed and safe Thanksgiving weekend. My wish for all is that they are able spend quality time with their loved ones. Let us please keep in our minds and hearts families that are in pain and suffering, including Nova Scotians and people across Atlantic Canada and Quebec, whose Thanksgiving will not be easy with the devastation of hurricane Fiona. We are especially grateful to everyone who stepped up to help before, during and after the storm, including members of our local joint emergency management team, like Karen Saulnier, Dave Aalders and Amani Saleh, the Fairview Resource Centre, the Bedford Lions Club, the Canada Games Centre staff, the Canadian Red Cross, the Disaster Animal Response Team of Nova Scotia and so many more. We thank them. I wish all Canadians across the country a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope everyone has a chance to rest and to reconnect with family and friends.

166 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Oct/7/22 11:04:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the people of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra are horrified and angry about the brutal murder of Mahsa Amini. Our community adds its voice to the women of the world who are protesting long-standing human rights abuses in Iran. Women of Iran are standing up at great risk to their personal safety, with heinous consequences. This must stop. No Iranians should live in fear. They should have protections in Iran and in Canada too. However, many here do not feel safe because people associated with the IRGC visit and live in our communities and have not been sanctioned. That is a failing of the Liberal government. The New Democrats stand with the women of Iran and wholly support the United Nations human rights commissioner's call for an independent investigation into Mahsa's death. We are holding the government to account to support women's rights in Iran and around the world.

157 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 110