44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 18, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/18/22 1:44:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and analysis of the bill. I entirely agree with her when she says that the issue of the environment and that of health are closely linked. They are intricately linked. We could take a holistic approach to these issues.
I have a two-part question. What does industry think of this bill? Has public health ever given an opinion, are they closely monitoring the issue and would they be a good expert to consult?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this act is largely concerned with protecting the environment and human health from toxins and maintaining air and water quality, but there is widespread agreement that CEPA is overdue for a substantial improvement. For one thing, it is widely considered to be unenforceable as it now stands, as there are multiple obstacles to enforcing it and remedies cannot be used.
A lot has happened in 23 years. New chemicals have been invented that potentially impact our health, and the public has been increasingly concerned about the health of our environment and the impact of it on our health and on the populations of animals and plants that we share the world with and depend on for our well-being. A poll in 2017 found that nine in 10 Canadians are concerned about exposure to toxins from consumer products, 96% agreed that labels should disclose the presence of those toxins in consumer products and 92% agreed that Canada should recognize the right to live in a healthy environment.
I would like to concentrate my remarks today on that final point: the right to live in a healthy environment. There are 159 countries around the world with legal obligations to protect the human right to a healthy environment, but Canada does not have those legal obligations. There are environmental bills of rights in Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but there is no federal law that explicitly recognizes the right to live in a healthy environment in Canada.
International efforts to recognize that right go back to the 1972 Stockholm declaration, which recognizes the right to “an environment of equality that permits a life of dignity and well-being”. Fifty years later, this past summer, on July 28, the UN General Assembly passed a unanimous resolution that recognized the right to a healthy environment around the world. With Canada voting for that resolution to finally join the rest of the world and with the 92% of Canadians agreeing with it, it is certainly high time that we had federal legislation that recognized this right. I am happy to say that Bill S-5 provides a step in that direction.
The preamble of CEPA will now include the following statement: “Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under this Act”. That is a good step, but there are limitations to that statement. For one, as the member for Repentigny mentioned, it is in the preamble where it does not really carry much legal weight. Also, the right is clearly restricted to the provisions of the act. In other words, it is around the control of toxins, air quality and water quality.
This new act would also state that those rights are “subject to any reasonable limits” and that those limits will be elaborated on in the implementation framework through “the consideration of relevant factors, including social, health, scientific and economic factors”. It is therefore important to see how these rights will be upheld. The implementation framework of this bill will apparently also elaborate on mechanisms to support that right.
While Bill S-5 seems to be a step forward in recognizing the right to live in a healthy environment, there are serious concerns that the right will not be backed up by measures that improve the enforceability of the act. In fact, the Senate committee studying the bill reported:
This committee would like to state their concern that the right to a healthy environment cannot be protected unless it is made truly enforceable. This enforceability would come by removing the barriers that exist to the current remedy authority within Section 22 of CEPA, entitled “Environmental Protection Action.” There is concern that Section 22 of CEPA contains too many procedural barriers and technical requirements that must be met to be of practical use. As Bill S-5 does not propose the removal or re-evaluation of these barriers, this Committee is concerned that the right to a healthy environment may remain unenforceable.
In discussions that I have had with top environmental lawyers about Bill S-5, I have heard more concerns that the implementation framework proposed in this bill would interpose the government between public rights and the remedies needed when those rights are violated.
My first suggestion would be that the bill be strengthened by giving the residents of Canada more power to ensure that their right to live in a healthy environment is upheld. That is one of the things that my private member's bill, Bill C-219, would do.
Bill C-219 is entitled the Canadian environmental bill of rights and will be debated later in this session. I would like to spend some time covering its provisions, because it suggests several ways Bill S-5 could and should be improved. I would like to mention here that Bill C-219 was drafted by my former colleague Linda Duncan, a brilliant environmental lawyer who was the MP for Edmonton Strathcona for many years. She introduced this same private member's bill four times during her career as an MP. It was never voted down but, unfortunately, died in each of those parliaments before becoming law.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the limitations of the right to a healthy environment proposed by Bill S-5 is that it is restricted to the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It does not cover environmental protections outlined in other parts of the federal environmental mandate, such as the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and so on. Bill C-219 would provide umbrella coverage to all federal legislation outside of CEPA. CEPA was carved out of Bill C-219, apparently to avoid clashing legislation.
On top of that wider coverage, Bill C-219 would provide stronger protections of the right to a healthy environment. Specifically, it would give residents of Canada the right to, among other things, access information about environmental concerns, standing at hearings, access tribunals and courts to uphold environmental rights, and request a review of laws. It would also provide protection to whistle-blowers.
To conclude, I reiterate that I will be supporting Bill S-5 at second reading, but I hope the government will look carefully at my bill to see how it might inform efforts to improve Bill S-5 in committee amendments. I also hope that if the government is serious about extending the right to live in a healthy environment to all Canadians, that it will support my bill, the Canadian environmental bill of rights, to extend and strengthen that right to the entire federal mandate.
1129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are two things: first, the process, and second, the outcomes.
This is the right process to proceed quickly to deliver better dental care for children.
On the outcome, about two million school days are missed by children every year because they need to go for emergency dental care. This is time wasted, obviously, for children. It is also an important burden for families. We need to do better. When children get sick, it is bad for their health and it is also bad for their long-term development, socially and health-wise, especially when they miss days at school.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we know our health care system is fractured. We do not truly have a head-to-toe health care system. It stops here. We know dental care is finally coming in to ensure that people get access to dental care.
42 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is because of the NDP, absolutely, to my colleague who is heckling me. We are making sure we have pharmacare so that people who do not have private insurance can access the medicine they need when they need it. Also, when it comes to mental health, we need parity. Mental health is health.
Does the minister not agree that we do not have parity between mental and physical health in this country and that we need legislation so we can make sure there is truly parity between mental and physical health?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we all agree that mental health is health, and mental health care is health care. That is exactly what we should all recognize. We fully support the views of the member that we need to invest more in better health care and better mental health care.
I would like to point out, in addition to what the member said on dental care, that approximately one family out of three in Canada does not have access to dental insurance. That explains, in large part, why many of those families and children do not get appropriate, accessible and affordable dental care.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am certain, because I know the member well, that she also knows what it is like for seniors to take care of their general health, whether we are talking about seniors in long-term care facilities, in residences or every senior who has difficulty affording dignified dental care.
I am sure the member also agrees with everyone in the House that taking care of seniors is also important.
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think we are all grateful to hear this question. As we said earlier, mental health is an integral part of health. Mental health care has to be a part of health care.
We also mentioned earlier that approximately $6 billion is already in the fiscal framework for the next five years to support mental health care, home care, community care and additional investments for long-term care. We know, because we said it during the campaign, that we will be doing more. In particular, we will be putting into place mental health transfers specifically targeted to the things that our colleague mentioned earlier.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the most important thing is that we ensure we are giving kids the access they need to preventative dental health care. What we see quite often is that those who cannot afford dental care end up in our emergency rooms accessing emergency dental care, which is being paid for through our health care system anyway. What we can accomplish by providing that preventative work in advance is that we can help ensure that kids do not end up in an emergency room and put to sleep in order to have emergency dental work done on them.
The impact it will have on individuals in my community is similar to the impact it will have on individuals in his community and communities throughout Canada. This will help create a baseline by which we all agree that children need access to dental care to ensure they have a shot at a healthy life in the future.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her kind words.
I have very little faith in the government's ability to deliver even the most basic programs. I lived through the passport fiasco, as we all did, throughout the summer. We want to make sure, obviously, that we have healthy children in this country. Many of the provinces already have existing programs. It is a little concerning to me that the health minister would not even speak to his provincial counterparts or find out what their needs are before tabling a $10-billion piece of legislation.
One would think a little more legwork would have gone into it before the government brought it forward. It is right that we have these many concerns.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have asked a question a couple of times today, and I still have not gotten a satisfactory answer, so my question for the member who was just on his feet is this: Has he consulted with the B.C. health minister? The health minister would not answer this question, but has anyone in his party talked to any provincial health minister in the country who has said that this $10-billion program is at the top of their wish list? We all know health is provincial jurisdiction. I would like an answer from someone on that side about whether they consulted with the provincial health ministers about this program before they brought it to the floor of the House of Commons.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the things that I think health ministers across the country would say is that the government has done a tremendous job of consulting with them on a variety of health care matters, and has done far less damage, I would argue, to the health care system than the previous government did when it chose to gut transfer payments to the provinces for health care.
One of the most important things about the bill is that it helps the provinces support many of the plans they have, and where provinces do not have coverage for kids, it is something they could actually benefit from. Frankly, the benefit to provincial health care systems from kids with good oral health is not just a today thing. It is an outcome that delivers value today and in the future.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member's reflections on what he is hearing in his riding are exactly what I am hearing in mine.
I have families that are struggling. I have seniors and young families that would benefit from the support. I also have a large number of people who work in health care, particularly doctors and nurses. They have all said that dental care would improve the long-term health care indicators of Canadians, and would reduce the burden on the health care system long term.
These are investments that help provincial health care systems save money in the long term. We can make all the decisions we want for the short term, but they provide long-term benefits for a sustainable health care system for the future. That is what we need to be doing together.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's speech was very entertaining, but Bill C-31 is a measure that is based in positive health outcomes for Canadians. Even when universal health care was first being discussed in this country, there were people like this member who did not want to see Canadians have positive health outcomes and benefits.
Fast-forward to today, and I do not think there is anything we are more proud of as Canadians than our ability to provide everyone in this country with health care if one is Canadian or a permanent resident. We have had challenges with health care, but I do not think the solution anyone would propose on any side of the House would be to do away with our universal health care system. It would be to invest more to make sure we have the doctors needed. Dental is a part of that type of system.
I have heard from many small business owners who have said that they would not have survived if it were not for the benefits this government provided, which the members opposite supported, for the economy and those businesses to survive. Does the member not have any businesses in his riding that benefited positively from the benefits that were provided?
212 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it looks really good in the headlines and it looks really good when we get the government to tell us that we do not care about children's teeth. No, we care about a program that works. We care about the economy. We care about the next generation. When we talk about spending money right, let us talk about the $4.5 billion that has been sitting in the coffers for the last year under the government when we know we are in a mental health crisis.
Earlier today, I heard that one person each week in the city of London is dying of an overdose. That is one person a week. In 2015, I was hearing that about Vancouver, but this has gone across our country. We are talking about dental care when we should really be talking about the opioid crisis.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do support this bill. I would like to share with the hon. member what I hear when I ask constituents what their top-of-mind issues are. Health care is right up there. I have never heard them say dental.
If this bill were calling for every family to get access to a family doctor and every community to have ambulances and emergency care, I would not care how many closure motions were used. I would vote for it. However, I cannot support closure motions on principle, and on this one, why this priority now? The wheels are falling off the bus of health care in this country, and I am desperate to see a federal-provincial health accord that makes the difference so that Canadians have the health care we have come to expect—
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a health care accord has been achieved with this government and other provincial jurisdictions, and it is something that continues to be ongoing.
In regard to the dental program, this is a first step. It is recognized that as a result of this particular program we will likely be seeing far fewer children going into our hospitals and using up some of those beds and emergency services, which will alleviate the load and the costs of other health care services. Therefore, it makes sense in many ways.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my whip for that great question.
I truly believe that the motives of the Liberal government and the NDP leave much to be desired. Obviously, more investments in health would have been good. If we look closely at the bill that is before us, we quickly see that a health care program could be a possibility a few years down the road in a different context. At the stage we are at now, what would be good is if the government would properly fund health care again.
If the government does not want to talk about that, draw things out and give us the opportunity to point out all the weaknesses in its arguments, then the best thing for it to do is impose a gag order. That is what we are seeing today. That is what the government is doing. The explanation is rather simple. This program does not cut it in the current context. The provinces do not think that this program cuts it, and the only way to get the bill passed as quickly as possible is to impose a gag order.
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not feel that the government is recreating something that already exists. It seems to me that it is interfering in something that is none of its business.
It is up to the provinces to develop a health care system. If they want to do it, they will do it. The federal government should do what it has the power to do, which is transfer money to improve health care funding.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about how dental care is health care. I think that too often during this debate we have set up this false dichotomy. Dental care is health care, and that has to be established. It is ridiculous that public coverage ends at one's tonsils and does not go to one's teeth. I wonder if my hon. colleague could quickly expand on that point and add any final thoughts he might have.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
