44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 24, 2022 11:00AM
- Oct/24/22 12:08:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has not yet touched on Bill S-5, which is certainly the subject of debate today, and I would ask you if there is a need to ask for relevance.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:19:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, as tempting as it is to engage in a discussion of a thousand-year record drought, I want to stick to Bill S-5 and its impacts. I have a close history and connection to the bill, and I want to ask the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands if he is aware of how deeply this bill is embedded in his own party. I hope that the Conservatives will support amendments to Bill S-5 and help strengthen them.
This bill was originally passed under the majority Conservative government in the late eighties. Interestingly, to me, as an environmentalist, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and overhauled, or, one could say, attacked, most of the environmental legislation in Canada, that government left the CEPA alone. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was not substantially changed or altered at all under Stephen Harper. In fact, the Harper government moved ahead on banning certain toxic chemicals using CEPA, for instance bisphenol A. There was never any retreat or attack on the ongoing work to create a safer environment for human health, which is fundamentally what the Canadian Environmental Protection Act's toxic substances sections are about.
Therefore, I am hoping the hon. member and the Conservative Party will be supporting this bill. It needs some amendments to strengthen it. It has not been overhauled in 20 years. My question for the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is this. Will he vote for Bill S-5, recognizing that it is part of his party's legacy?
259 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:32:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Lest my friend from Cypress Hills—Grasslands thinks I am biased in the matter on which I raised a question of relevance, while I have not disagreed with a single word from my friend from Timmins—James Bay, I have not heard much about Bill S-5.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:18:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who always works hard for the environment. She is an absolutely wonderful member of Parliament.
My question is about the right to a healthy environment. During today's debate, I noticed that some members found it odd to have a right to a healthy environment.
At present, 150 countries have enshrined the protection of the right to a healthy environment into their constitutions, regulations or bills.
Is the member aware of the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which recently recognized the right to a healthy environment?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:51:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, obviously I would disagree with the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, and so would some members of his caucus, who favour carbon pricing.
I want to correct the record, because, I am sure unintentionally, he has misstated the progress Germany has made in reducing greenhouse gases. He used the claim that 70% of Germany's electricity was still coming from fossil fuels. It is too high, but it is 30%. Renewables represent 50% of Germany's electricity grid. The result is that, yes, it is true, Germans pay very high prices for energy, but they have reduced greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels, while Canada is 20% above 1990 levels. Therefore, we should have another look at Germany's path.
I want to expand on something the hon. member talked about, which is the capacity of Environment Canada to meet the challenges under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in Bill S-5. There was an observations paper that was attached to the amendment from the Senate. I would ask whether the member for Dufferin—Caledon noted that in that observation paper the Senate asks whether the government will expand resources to Environment Canada to be able to fulfill the act's promise.
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 3:56:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the points my hon. colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has made that we cannot turn away or pretend we do not know about the genocidal treatment of Uighur Muslims in the People's Republic of China.
I wonder if he thinks that at any point his party would be open to a thorough review of how this country became beholden to the People's Republic of China when the previous Conservative government and the cabinet of Stephen Harper accepted a treaty that will last for decades, calling for the protection of corporations of the People's Republic of China in a superior fashion to the way Canadian investors are treated in China.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 4:39:02 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, for my hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, it is such a joy to hear such a thoughtful speech that really looked at Bill S-5 and what is wrong with it. I totally agree with the member that it is not adequate for the government to promise us a right to a healthy environment and then tell us it will take two years to figure out what that is. Let us hope we fix that.
With respect to the question on plastics, I want to put to the member that, in order to regulate plastics at all, the government is using the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and I believe it is using it appropriately. The concept of CEPA toxic has been used for years, which is not the common-sense meaning of toxic.
When the government uses the power it derives through CEPA, it uses it in an overly restricted way, so it is only prepared right now to not really deal with the threat of ocean plastics. It is in very limited circumstances, and certainly not ever getting into the hospital use of single-use plastics. Looking at forks and straws is as far as it has gone. I offer that to the member as a comment to see if that gives him any reassurance.
220 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 5:39:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I have worked on the Canadian Environment Protection Act since before its first reading in the late 1980s. I was in the office of the minister of environment, so I know the bill quite well. It is with the greatest and most profound sense of sadness that I see what we have before us, because so many opportunities to modernize and do what needs to be done are lost.
I fervently hope that this bill, which comes to us from the Senate, will be significantly improved at committee. Many members have spoken to areas that need improvement, and I want to emphasize the ones I can in my time.
I would like to preface my remarks by saying that a lot of what we have discussed today on Bill S-5 has been about the climate crisis. I want to identify that I think the Environmental Protection Act has tools we can use to address the climate crisis, tools the current government is not using.
I want to make a point that is not made very often in this place, and that is that, when we talk about the climate crisis, we are incorrect when we classify it as an environmental issue. The U.S. Biden administration has correctly classified the climate crisis as a security threat. There is much that we need to protect in our environment, and this bill speaks to a number of areas that are not specifically about climate, but that create tools we could use. We should use those tools in part four, and I will speak to that later, but we should stop assuming that, when we talk about the climate crisis, that we are talking about an environmental threat. We are talking about a threat to the survival of human civilization.
Looking at what we have before us in Bill S-5, on protecting the environment, I want to approach it in three categories. The first is what is missing. The second is what is wrong in the act, and the third is what is better because of some amendments that were recently made.
What is missing is a long list. This is a big act. When it was bought together, as I mentioned, back in the 1980s, it took a number of bits of different legislation on ocean dumping, clean air and commercial chemicals and lumped them together. We called it the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
It has served us well. It has survived a Supreme Court challenge. I want to return to that, but one of the things that is missing in this act is that not all sections of the act are being reviewed or amended, which means that if we, as parliamentarians, see an opportunity to improve something that is in the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we cannot touch it in committee. It would be outside the scope of the act.
For instance, we can look at part six, which deals with ocean dumping and genetically modified organisms. Here we are, the only country on earth that has regulated and approved genetically modified animals for human consumption, and we are not modernizing that section of the act.
We have, in fact, approved something called AquaBounty Atlantic salmon, which is genetically engineered. We should be looking at the genetically modified organisms part of part six, but we are not.
Another part that is missing is the right to a healthy environment. It is mentioned, yes, and we have talked about it. A number of members have mentioned the gaps there, including, very recently in this debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
Here is the problem: The government says that it is going to create a right to a healthy environment, but it will not be enforceable. A right that is not enforceable is no right at all.
This point has been made by many who have looked at the act, including the very important observation note that came to this place, attached as a note from the other place, where they studied the bill and made amendments. They said that we cannot have a right to a healthy environment if we leave in place all of the barriers to enforcement that exist in section 22 of the act.
We have to get to that. We cannot have that ruled outside the scope of what a committee gets to look at.
What is wrong? My gosh, I never thought that, in 2022, we would have a climb down from the advances in environmental protection brought about by the Mulroney government. In 1988, the act was better at listing toxic chemicals than what we have in front of us right now.
If members think I am angry, I am. I am appalled.
Schedule 1 in the current act, as it has been since 1988 when it got royal assent, says that it is the list of toxic substances. The title is “List of Toxic Substances” in schedule 1. Here we have this proposal from the current government to take that away and not use the term “List of Toxic Substances”. The climbdown to a two-list category is absolutely wrong-headed and baffling. It also undermines the constitutional underpinnings of this act.
We should look at the fact that in 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. Hydro-Québec, found that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was within federal jurisdiction specifically because it used the criminal law head of power in dealing with toxic substances.
If we take out the word “toxic”, we are going to get constitutional challenges. We have already seen some industry coalition folks start talking about it last year, when we saw the first version of this act. I am going to quote from a blog from a very important group. The expert NGO on this is the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and its lead counsel, Joe Castrilli, said this: “[L]egislative drafting should always try to avoid playing with constitutional fire.” This is a big mistake. This is very wrong.
Another problem we have is that since the year 2000, of the substances listed for pollution-prevention planning, only 25 out of 150 have seen pollution-prevention plans. Therefore, we are failing to meet the expectations of Canadians. We are listing something as a toxic substance and telling Canadians, “This is a threat to your health and we want to see pollution-prevention planning, only we are not going to make it mandatory. Oh no, it is something you can do if you feel like it and you are in an industry that is producing toxic substances.”
That is so far from good enough. The need for pollution-prevention planning on chemicals that are dangerous to our health, that cause cancer and that cause birth defects does not bear repeating. We have to fix this, please. We have to make pollution prevention mandatory. We also have to create the opportunity for governments to do the research that needs to be done, not as an opportunity that the minister has, but as a requirement: The minister must do this research.
We have looked at a number of areas in this bill where much more needs to be done. We have to make sure we delete the section that would create a two-list system and make sure the list is defined, as it has been since 1988, as a list of toxic substances. Let us not undermine that, and let us strengthen pollution-prevention planning.
Let me just close on what is better. I have covered what is missing and what is wrong. What is better, thanks to the other place, is the strengthening around issues of vulnerable populations. Additional language is very much appreciated.
I have a private member's bill, and I have had the honour to see it supported in this place. It has now passed second reading. It is going to the environment committee, and many of the specific amendments that were just made in the Senate really helped put us on the road. The bill I am speaking of is Bill C-226, to confront environmental racism and create programs in environmental justice.
Much of what we have before us now gets us ahead on how we create programs that are forward-looking to promote environmental justice. One of them, of course, will be to join the 150 countries around the world that already have legislation that requires a right to a healthy environment. We are not inventing something here. We should know how to do it, and we should not wait two years.
We also have very specific guidance here in what we have before us in Bill S-5. It is better. It has good definitions and good sections on how we protect individuals in vulnerable groups from toxic substances.
We can do better than what we have before us in Bill S-5. We have waited 20 years to look at this bill again. It was always good legislation. It always could have been better. We cannot let it get worse. We cannot allow it to be weakened in this place in the year 2022. Let us improve this bill in committee.
1555 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 5:50:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it was one of the greatest privileges of my life as a non-party member. I was never a Conservative, but that government did great work.
I have to say that I am not sure any of the parties are as good on the environment now as they were in the eighties. I do not want to make this comment partisan, but there is no question in my mind that the Liberals in the 1980s, whether it was the Liberal environment minister in Ontario, Jim Bradley, who pushed so hard on acid rain, or the Liberal environment minister from the province of Quebec, the honourable Clifford Lincoln. All these individuals who were leaders in the movement, whether New Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives, were stronger then than now.
I would say that what has intervened is the rise of corporate rule and the fact that many people in politics defer to corporations and polluters in ways that our leaders then, like the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, would never have done. We should reflect on that too.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 5:52:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member for Oshawa that there is no way in this world that we could accuse the Liberal government of being too strong with its actions on single-use plastics.
We have an appallingly weak set of regulations. Nothing in any government announcement or in this act will reduce the use of lightweight plastics in the manufacturing of durable goods. Nothing.
We do know that if we change the way this act is worded, we undermine its constitutionality. I can tell the member that none of those 10 major rivers has anything to do with the plastic contamination that we find on our shorelines in Canada. We need to take action under CEPA. We need to list and regulate the use of substances like polystyrenes for uses like floats and wharfs. They should be banned. They are contaminating our waterways and our wildlife, and, ultimately, they are poisoning us.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 5:54:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I love the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. We are each half of our caucus.
The Senate did improve this by removing the balancing. It said it can be limited by factors that would normally be used to limit any extended right, but the bill has improved in that area. The right to a healthy environment is no right at all if it cannot be enforced. We have to take the barriers out of section 22. We have our work cut out for us as parliamentarians, regardless of political stripe—
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 7:12:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciated that the member worked into his speech on this motion this evening the importance of the United Nations in multilateral work. It is the definition of multilateral work that we have a United Nations and that we are able to work within it even in times when the world is in graver crises than we have seen, I think, in my whole lifetime. We are closer to nuclear war, and we have more conflicts around the world.
I would ask the hon. member whether the United Nations cannot do more to speak out and to ensure that we protect the Uighur Muslim population from genocide.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
