SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 113 - Oct/19/22

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

Oct/19/22 5:07:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I think there are many aspects of the legislation that really would improve our environment going forward. One of the things I think is quite interesting is the whole issue of labelling of toxic products. That is something that, from what I understand, is being expanded upon, and I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the importance of labelling. From a personal perspective, I believe it is something that is really quite encouraging, and I hope to hear more feedback on that.

90 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 113 - Oct/19/22

Ms. Laurel Collins

Oct/19/22 5:11:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question and also for her work on this issue. I know she has put forward motions to address this. It is a concern also in British Columbia, so it absolutely is something that needs to be addressed. We need to take strong action to ensure companies are not putting toxic chemicals into our environment that then enter our bodies. If we are thinking about our children and future generations, this is critically important to address.

83 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 113 - Oct/19/22

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Oct/19/22 5:33:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. I would assume that there would have to be some kind of triaging system. One could ask the government to assess a substance that is totally harmless, so I think there would have to be some funnelling. However, the government has been assessing chemicals for a long time. This bill goes back to 1988, and I believe we have a lot of expertise in the government on the assessment of toxic substances. I have faith that the government will be able to act on this particular provision, but it is a point that I look forward to discussing. It is a good question and, in fact, I would like to see that question addressed to government departmental officials.

125 words

Context: House Hansard - 113 - Oct/19/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Oct/19/22 6:05:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, in 2010, I believe that the government banned BPAs in baby bottles. Since then, some companies have been known to replace the substance with another substance that is just as toxic. My colleague talked a lot about single-use plastics in the environment. Does he not think the regulations should be stricter in order to improve our health and the health of our children?

66 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 113 - Oct/19/22

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Oct/19/22 6:08:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the question I have for my friend really boils down to whether he trusts the government to determine whether a substance is toxic, like a straw or a pen. It is saying all plastics are toxic. Plastics are— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

46 words

Context: House Hansard - 113 - Oct/19/22

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Oct/19/22 6:09:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the real hypocrisy is that the Liberals had a previous member who was a minister, and in her riding in Chester, Nova Scotia, they have this technology, Sustane, whereby they can take plastics, distill them down to their original form, the different oils, and use them as biofuel. Instead of that, what do the Liberals do? They just ban straws all together. As my colleague said, these paper straws have an even larger carbon footprint. Does my colleague feel that he can trust the government to politically ascertain what is toxic and what is not?

97 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 113 - Oct/19/22

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Oct/19/22 6:09:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, yes, I agree with the hon. member that I do not think we can trust the government to get it right. I know the Liberal members were hopeful. I would tell them to make a definition of what they deem to be toxic and maybe put out a schedule of toxins. That would have been nice to see. They could have defined the “right to a clean environment” and put that in the bill. Then we could be debating that. I am certain that I would not agree with the government, because it is generally playing politics with this kind of stuff.

106 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 113 - Oct/19/22

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Oct/19/22 6:24:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, as I said in an earlier intervention, there is no doubt that there is a need to update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and that there are some very good things in Bill S-5. However, surveys have found that there are a lot of toxic substances in ordinary consumer products. We had a study that found very high levels of lead in products that were being sold in dollar stores, including in canned food and children's toys. This bill does not have any requirement for more transparency from corporations about the presence of toxic chemicals in ordinary consumer products. Why is that left out of this version of the bill?

114 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 113 - Oct/19/22

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Oct/19/22 6:39:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I was beginning to think there was a scintilla of hope that if this bill went to committee, there would be some sort of redemption, but the member opposite convinced me that there is not even going to be an attempt to make these initial decisions based on a scintilla of science. He said that somebody might be afraid or feel that something might be toxic and it is put on the list, but that is not the way we do it. We have a rigorous system for developing the list of toxic chemicals that exist here or that can be brought into Canada. He mentioned lead paint. I am sure he would be comforted to know that in Canada and the United States, we have not been putting lead in paint since 1992, not to say what is on the walls already that should not be. From what he says, somebody who fears that ground beef could be toxic could have it put on the list and everybody would be denied ground beef and it would have a warning label. Actually, that was proposed earlier this year. I am glad that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency thought better of it.

203 words