SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 116 - Oct/24/22

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Oct/24/22 4:19:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I should apologize to the folks in the gallery, because this is probably not the day to come and listen to a debate. Bill S-5, as riveting as we try to make it, probably does not have the most riveting debate. I just will recap, as I was cut short prior to question period, some of the concerns we have with Bill S-5. I will say that the Conservatives are going to support sending Bill S-5 to committee, but there are some concerns. The number one concern we have is trusting that the government is going to do what it says it is going to do, because as we know and have seen for the last seven years, it has failed on a number of its promises and has not delivered on a number of its promises. The carbon tax has done nothing but make things more unaffordable for Canadians. It has done nothing to cut emissions. As a matter of fact, emissions have gone up every year with the imposition of the carbon tax. The Liberals have waged war on our natural resource industry and energy sector. There is no doubt that I live in an area ravaged by wildfires, drought and flooding. We have to take concrete action on climate change, and what the government has done is stand up and say all the right things. However, it has literally done nothing. I introduced into the record some bills that have waged war on our natural resource sector and energy sector, making it more difficult for them to compete on the world stage. As a matter of fact, the Liberals have landlocked Canadian resources in many ways and have failed to secure a softwood lumber agreement. They like to say it was all due to the previous government, yet every time something happens, they fail to take responsibility. The Liberals are in government, and I will perhaps pre-empt our colleagues across the way as to some of the questions they are going to ask. They are going to ask where the Conservatives' plan is for climate change. They are in government at this time, and they have had seven years to come up with a plan, yet they have failed to do so. Bill S-5 deals with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 would be the first major update since 1999. It recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and requires the Government of Canada to protect this right, which I do not think anyone on this side would disagree with. What we do disagree with is that it is going to take the Liberals another two years to figure out what that means. What does it mean for every Canadian to have the right to a healthy environment? Now they are going to study it for another two more years. One thing that is always challenging with the government is that it tells us and Canadians, “Just trust us. We'll get it done.” We should just trust, when we send a bill to committee, that it will consider the amendments and flesh out all the details in parliamentary committees. However, we have seen time and time again that the government fails to take up any of the considerations the opposition gives. I am in the health committee right now. As a matter of fact, we start in 10 minutes. We are studying Bill C-31, a bill that has been rammed down our throats, although I think it is well intentioned. It is the rental and dental bill, and I will remind Canadians that we have essentially been given by the government and its costly coalition with the NDP two hours to study this piece of legislation and question the ministers. It is predicted that up to $10 billion is going to be spent on it, so there are just two hours of study on a piece of legislation that is very important. I know members are going ask what I have against our most marginalized communities. I live in an area and jurisdiction where rent is very, very expensive. I am not disagreeing that the amount of money they are going to give, which I think is $600 or $500, will help for perhaps a week of rent in our neck of the woods, but what happens to Canadians who are struggling the rest of the time? The Liberals come out with these schemes, and all we are saying is, “Show us a plan.” They have had seven years to deliver on plans, and I will remind them again that when we are talking about environmental protection, the government, after seven years, still continues to approve dumping billion upon billions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways. In 2017 alone, an estimated 167 billion litres were pumped into the waterways. Just this April, Quebec had a massive issue in Quebec City, I believe, where over two days in April, 21 million litres of sewage were dumped into the St. Lawrence River every hour. Again, every hour, 21 million litres of raw sewage were dumped. Bill S-5 also deals with, and muddies the water a bit on, provincial jurisdiction. Again, the government, as we have seen over the last seven years, likes to ram things through. It is ham-fisted in its approach to legislation. We know that Bill S-5 takes aim at the plastics industry and now lists plastic in schedule 1. While the Liberals have taken the word “toxic” out, substances that are regulated are still referred to as toxic. The plastics industry has some concerns with that. When I talk about plastics, I will be the first to admit that when I was on the fisheries file, I was staggered when I saw the amount of plastic waste in our oceans. At any given time, there are about 5.25 trillion macroplastic and microplastic pieces floating in our oceans. Yes, we have to do things to combat that and have to be smart about that. There is no disagreeing with that. However, let us remember some of the important parts of society that plastics and the plastic industry contribute to. In the health care field, plastics have been widely used to create medical tools and devices, such as surgical gloves, syringes, insulin pens, IV tubes, catheters and inflatable splints. These products are created for one-time use and help prevent the spread of dangerous diseases by eliminating the need to sterilize and reuse a device. There is enhanced safety. The durable nature of plastics allows for its application in the creation of medical safety devices, such as tamper-proof caps on medical packaging, blister packs and various medical waste disposable bags. Regarding increased comfort, previously, the health care industry used metal or metallic medical devices, especially in the field of prosthetics. I have a prosthetic in my knee right now that I am dealing with, which is something I am very well aware of. Owing to the durability and versatility of plastic, it is now used as a replacement for such medical components. Regarding innovative applications, since plastic can be moulded per the requirement of a specific application, it has also been used to develop new medical devices. Also, the cost effectiveness of plastic means that it can not only be mass-produced at a cost-effective rate, but allows for a wider range of applications, making it a worthwhile investment. Regarding the benefits of plastic, while I am not up here defending the plastics industry by any means, given what I said earlier in my speech about plastic waste and the microplastics that find their way into our oceans and waterways, there are benefits and advantages of plastics in terms of greening our industry and cost effectiveness. An EU study, which I have in front of me, says that 22% of an Airbus A380 double-decker aircraft is built with lightweight carbon fibre-reinforced plastics. That saves fuel and lowers operating costs by 15%. It also lowers the emissions of that aircraft. About 105 kilograms of plastics, rather than the traditional materials in a car weighing 1,000 kilograms, make possible fuel savings of 750 litres over a lifespan of 90,000 miles. This reduces oil consumption by 12 million tonnes and, consequently, CO2 emissions by 30 million tonnes in the European Union alone. If we look at renewable energies and the use of plastics there, we know that pipes, solar panels, wind turbines and rotors all use plastic and petroleum components in them as well. When we look at cutting our greenhouse gases and making sure our homes are greener and more efficient, double-glazed windows are essential for energy-efficient homes. They have a minimum of 35 years of life and are easily maintained. There are a number of things we can all agree on. The things that we disagree on and have concerns about are the 24 amendments the Independent Senators Group, which we know is not so independent as it is appointed by the Prime Minister and the government, brought forward. It is challenging for us to trust what the Liberal government is going to say. I have been here for seven years. This is my seventh anniversary of being an elected member of Parliament, and I came here not so jaded. I have good friends on the other side, and I will say that there are good people on all sides of the House who come to Ottawa with the best intentions. However, sadly, what we just saw for the vote on the Conservative opposition day motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn is that only one Liberal member of Parliament voted in favour of it. He stood up for his constituents. I will remind people that this is about the government tripling its carbon tax and making things more costly for those who live in rural and remote areas and depend on heating oil and propane to heat their homes. Canada is the only G7 country to have raised fuel taxes during the period of record-high global fuel prices, and energy analysts have predicted that Canadians could see their home heating bills rise by 50% to 100%, on average, this winter. When this was brought up in question period, the parliamentary secretaries and the Minister of Environment stood and asked what the Conservatives have against the carbon tax, especially when the good folks on the east coast have just gone through such a horrendous natural disaster with the hurricane that took place, the 100-year storm. I heard one of my Liberal friends say there were 100-foot waves. It is unbelievable. The pictures and images are just incredible, yet the Liberals are not concerned about the cost of living, which has become unattainable for those living in rural and remote areas. Things are getting harder and harder, and even Liberal premiers are appealing to the government to do whatever it can to cancel its planned carbon tax hike and make things more affordable. I will remind Canadians that on January 1, they are also going to wake up to a payroll tax, with more money being taken away by the Liberal government. All it has done is make things harder and harder. The Conservatives will agree to pass Bill S-5 to get it to committee, but we have some serious concerns.

1939 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Oct/24/22 4:33:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I was trying to square some of the comments in the hon. member's speech, particularly the one around us not doing anything for climate change but ramming things down people's throats. I was thinking of what we have done on climate change with the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change that we introduced and the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act that we introduced. I was on the environment committee when it worked on that and am still on the environment committee, where we will be studying this bill if it gets directed to us. Climate change and health vulnerability are brought together in a Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health report that the committee just received. It looks at the assessment of human health impacts of climate change. It is important that Bill S-5, as the member has mentioned, makes a bridge between human health and the right to a healthy environment and the other programs we have introduced around climate change. Could the hon. member expand on that, please?

178 words

All Topics

Mr. Todd Doherty

Oct/24/22 4:34:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the concern we have is that it says every Canadian has a right to a healthy environment, but the Canadian government needs another two years to study that. What does that mean? Our riding has gone through some horrific wildfire seasons, as well as drought and flooding. We have had the whole gamut of the climate change issues facing Canadians, and really facing people from coast to coast to coast. I have seen how it impacts Canadians mentally, physically and financially. We have to make sure we are doing things for the best interests of Canadians. We have to make sure that we can deliver on a plan. The government has never put forth a plan, and it is failing to do so again.

126 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Oct/24/22 4:35:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, Bill S‑5 contains a number of clauses, and I would like my colleague to comment on one of them, section 99. What this does is expand provisions requiring those who manufacture, process, sell at the retail level, import or distribute a substance or a product containing a substance to inform the public of any risk the product poses to the environment or human life or health. Basically, people must be informed of any danger. Conservatives often talk about “green oil and gas”. Is green oil and gas less harmful to the environment and human life and health than conventional oil? I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Todd Doherty

Oct/24/22 4:36:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am going to apologize to my hon. colleague across the way. I do not know whether it was the translation, but I did not hear all of his question. I am not the expert on Bill S-5. I do know that we have some serious concerns with it. As we move forward, it is incumbent on all of us to make sure we are working collaboratively with our friends across the way to whatever extent they are willing to do so. They say they are willing to listen to amendments. I do not know whether my friend is part of the environment committee, but I hope that he brings that question to committee when it is discussing this further.

123 words

All Topics

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

Oct/24/22 4:37:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, we can have a lot of debate about the motion the Conservatives put forward. Of course, we put forward an amendment to change it to “GST”, which we would have supported, and they chose not to. The member is from B.C., and he knows how much more meaningful that would have been for people in our communities. Just to come back to the bill, we know that nine out of 10 Canadians are finding chemicals in their blood or urine, which are having huge impacts on their health. I wonder if the member agrees that we need to amend the bill to include mandatory labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products, a provision that would stop companies from hiding from the public which toxic substances are in the products people purchase.

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Todd Doherty

Oct/24/22 4:38:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, my understanding of this bill is that it would put into place a provision that anybody could bring forth a concern about a toxic substance and an assessment on that substance would be developed within 24 months to determine whether that substance is toxic. While I am not familiar with the statistics the member rambled off, that is the challenge of using facts and figures with that. Perhaps not everyone who is in the debate has access to those same statistics to debate it or discuss it. However, it is concerning. I believe she said that nine out of 10 Canadians are finding toxic substances within their blood or urine. That is something that needs to be studied at committee and discussed at that time.

127 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

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

Mr. Todd Doherty

Oct/24/22 4:40:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, this bill also puts in place the precautionary principle. It is one I have seen, and I am very well aware of it in other pieces of legislation we have studied. It gives the power to the minister of that file to take extraordinary measures when he or she deems it necessary. We always want to make sure we are putting the right tools in place. What we have seen using the precautionary principle in the fisheries file is that decisions were made to limit fishing in certain areas without consultation with local stakeholders, those who would be impacted the most, so there is a concern with respect to that. However, I take what our hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands has said. She is always one who has thoughtful representation, and I appreciate it.

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Oct/24/22 4:41:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the wildfires in his area and the weather events that happened on the east coast. I am genuinely unsure where the Conservative Party is when we talk about that being a result of climate change. I wonder if the member could share with the House if he believes that climate change is real and that those events are a product of climate change.

69 words

All Topics

Mr. Todd Doherty

Oct/24/22 4:41:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague across the way knows where I stand on that question. As a matter of fact, I said it in my speech. We are dealing with extraordinary events due to climate change, such as the wildfires we saw in our neck of the woods and the floods we have seen. We had incredible weather storms, the tsunamis, the flooding we saw in the lower mainland and the hurricane we saw on the east coast. The fact of the matter is that our climate has been changing, and we have to adapt as we move forward. We have to have a real plan. A carbon tax is not a plan to combat climate change. That is what we are saying on this side. What is the plan for the government to combat climate change? It always wants to push that back and ask us what our plan is. We would like to remind the Liberals that they have been in government for seven years, and they have failed every step of the way to meet any targets they have set. They have failed to do the things they have promised Canadians.

194 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Oct/24/22 4:43:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I am pleased to rise to speak today on Senate Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. This is the first major reform of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act since 1999. Obviously, modernizing it was long overdue. Bill S-5 proposes some major additions, some of which may go beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. In order to understand this bill, it is important to remember that parliamentarians have spoken out on several occasions on the subject, and that there are clear expectations about what should be included in this bill. That said, the government reiterated its desire to strengthen this legislation, and the minister decided to ask the Senate to sponsor it, which is a sign of good intentions. What can we expect from a government on the environment? In Quebec, for example, the government is working to apply environmental protection laws and regulations; reduce water, air and soil contamination; protect biodiversity and save species and habitats; assess industrial projects and manage residual materials; and much more. We can see that Quebec knows how to defend its environmental interests and that it does not need Canada’s help to promote and protect Quebeckers’ fundamental rights. What should we expect from citizens, such as business people, when it comes to the environment? We must encourage citizens and business people to actively participate in the development of a healthier environment. Citizens can take smaller steps on a daily basis to reduce their environmental footprint by recycling and consuming as few polluting and toxic products as possible. Business people can take bigger steps. I am thinking in particular of building owners. All too often, building owners do not want to invest to make their properties more energy efficient, although there are effective solutions out there. Consider Dany Bonapace, a citizen in my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Last year, for example, he told the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that we could use artificial intelligence technology to manage energy needs, develop systems to reduce energy consumption and optimize the use of the energy produced. We can implement solutions to reduce our energy consumption and produce renewable energies such as wind and solar power. Buildings can store energy in batteries and take part in energy sharing infrastructure networks. Digital technologies offer numerous possibilities. The federal government could set an example by accelerating the work to make its buildings more energy efficient. It could also introduce penalties to the subsidies given to companies whose buildings are not energy efficient. We also need to use renewable energies to ensure we run mining and forestry operations in an environmentally responsible way. Mining and forestry companies must themselves begin to produce renewable energy. These are some of the actions that citizens, business people and industries are already proposing in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. What about Bill S-5? More specifically, what are some of its objectives, and how will they affect Quebec? One of its major objectives is to establish the right to a healthy environment. We are not fooled by the Liberal government’s claim that the modernization of the act creates the “right to a healthy environment”, a partisan claim that is not worth much. If the government were serious and politically bold, it would propose a round of constitutional negotiations with the federation’s partners in order to add this right to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms already establishes that a person can seek an injunction to ensure that their right to live in a healthful environment is respected. It is therefore clear that the federal government could learn from Quebec and that Quebecers do not need the federal government to guarantee them a healthy environment. However, there are opportunities for co-operation in Bill S-5, in particular concerning a regulatory framework for dealing with toxic substances. For example, the Bloc Québécois would like to collaborate with all members of Parliament on the management of chemicals and toxic substances, assessments of the cumulative effects of toxic substances, particularly among vulnerable populations, and mandatory labelling requirements. I would also like to take this opportunity to say that I asked the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology to conduct a study on the recycling industry. This will make it possible to propose solutions and make recommendations that we can then debate in the House. It is important to remember that Bill S-5 reflects the recommendations of health and environment groups as closely as possible. There is also the whole issue of transparency. To be able to collaborate with health and environment groups, we absolutely need more transparency. Information must be more accessible and more widely publicized. There must also be significant public participation in the assessment of industrial projects, because that will help significantly reduce the level of skepticism toward businesses and governments. Moreover, we continue to demand that first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples be part of the process from the outset. Although the Bloc Québécois supports it, the bill should not be an excuse for the federal government to impose environmental requirements on Quebec. Quebec has often said that it opposed any federal action in environmental issues on its territory, and it is important to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction in environmental matters. As I said earlier, Quebec is a leader in environmental protection, and its commitment to renewable energies, its conservation efforts and the quality of its environmental regulations are exemplary. For these reasons, we are prepared to share the Quebec government's knowledge and strengths with the federal government in order to achieve the universal objective of environmental protection. I will also propose two actions that could also enhance an environmental bill. When she spoke before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Laure Waridel suggested that we focus on environmental taxation. We could include such measures in legislation aimed at ensuring a healthy environment. We are talking about internalizing the environmental and social costs of products and services by applying the polluter pay principle, for example. Representatives of Enerkem also appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology as part of its study of the green recovery, and spoke about the waste management sector, which has developed advanced recycling technology, advanced biofuels, and renewable chemicals produced from biomass and non-recyclable residual materials. All of these new technologies require considerable research and development, as well as private and public capital investments. There will need to be an international strategy to foster the development of innovative waste management solutions. According to what Mr. Chornet told us, Europe and the United States have implemented regulations fostering the use of second-generation biofuels, or green chemicals. As a result, it is more profitable for Enerkem to sell products in California and Europe, since regulations there encourage businesses to opt for green chemistry. Mr. Chornet believes Canada needs to establish the necessary conditions to encourage project implementation and biofuel consumption in order to benefit from the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with green chemistry. Those are just some examples. In conclusion, environmental protection transcends borders. It is a global phenomenon that all of us need to address. Bill S‑5 will help Quebec reach the environmental targets it has already set, but there needs to be collaboration with the federal government. That is why I and my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill.

1294 words

All Topics

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

Oct/24/22 4:51:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. It is always interesting to hear our colleagues from Quebec share Quebec's vision. Quebec has long been a leader in the fight against climate change and environmental conservation. In my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, as well as in the neighbouring riding, the protection of endangered species is a very important issue. Five or six years ago, the federal government was asked to intervene to protect an endangered species, the tiny chorus frog. Does my colleague think it is important for the federal government to be able to intervene like this from time to time?

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Oct/24/22 4:53:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague of the supremacy of the provinces', and therefore Quebec's, environmental legislation. This being said, there is something I always find somewhat bizarre in certain fundamental environmental debates. I am thinking in particular about Gazoduq's GNL Quebec project. In Quebec, the general public, the media and members of Parliament were more concerned about the possible impact on the fjord's whales than the possible impact on people's health. I think we need to think about this and make human health a priority when we undertake environmental or industrial projects.

100 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Oct/24/22 4:53:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member mentioned that, in his opinion, the provinces have priority when the matter affects their territory directly. It is important to understand that, on this side of the House, we respect provincial jurisdiction. Last week, the Minister of the Environment severely condemned a project that is 100% under provincial jurisdiction. He even said that he was going to conduct an investigation, when there are already environmental investigations under way. This involves the third link. The official opposition severely condemned the Liberal minister's remarks, saying that it was a bad habit among Liberals to meddle in affairs that do not concern them and to lecture the provinces, suggesting that the people in Ottawa are better informed than the people in Quebec. This is not true at all. We think that Quebec has full authority over environmental matters when it comes to the third link. Does my colleague agree?

155 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Oct/24/22 4:54:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question. It will be interesting to see what project the Quebec government proposes. I think that the Quebec government's expectation is very clear: The federal government should provide financial support and nothing else. The decisions must be made by and for the provinces.

59 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Oct/24/22 4:55:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about refitting buildings, especially, and lowering energy there, which is something we certainly agree on as New Democrats. Even the Conservatives had it in their platform, so it is something we all agree on. The government, through Natural Resources Canada, put out the greener homes grant so people could retrofit their homes, lower their emissions and save money when it comes to home heating. However, I got an email from Tom, in my riding, who is one of many. He said, “Greener homes is a great program on paper and helps to motivate homeowners with energy-efficient upgrades, but if I knew the process would be this long and arduous I likely would not have applied. It needs to be fixed. Please help.” He cannot even get a call back. He has been waiting for months for his refit program. Can my colleague speak about how important it is that when people do the right thing, the government follows through and makes sure they get the rebate quickly so they are encouraged to invest in clean energy?

189 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Oct/24/22 4:56:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, that is an entire area in which not much has been done. I am talking about building energy efficiency. That is why I thought it was important to mention it in my speech. Yes, efforts are being made, especially in Quebec. Hydro-Québec's Hilo project is one example. Just imagine how much energy we can recover. When I arrive home in my electric car, I can plug it in. It is more difficult as a member of Parliament, considering our schedule, but an ordinary citizen who gets home at supper time could plug in their car, and the battery's energy could be used to prepare a meal or wash the dishes at a time of day when energy is in high demand. At the end of the day or during the night, the house would charge the electric car. This energy sharing is possible. It would be more energy efficient and would benefit everyone. There are, however, set-up costs, and the government could give us a hand with that.

176 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Oct/24/22 4:57:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, we are here in the House to discuss Bill S-5, or the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. This bill originated in the Senate this time, and it is being sponsored by Quebec Senator Marc Gold. We are at second reading stage. Bill S‑5 seeks to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which dates back to 1999 and is commonly referred to as CEPA. This act would replace the Food and Drugs Act and repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act. This bill, which is not a complete overhaul of CEPA, seeks to amend CEPA in order to recognize the right to a healthy environment, consider vulnerable populations and the cumulative effects that may result from exposure to toxic substances, create a system for regulating toxic substances, and create a system for assessing and managing the risks that drugs pose to the environment. Of course, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill S‑5. I would like to remind members that the Bloc Québécois believes that the Quebec nation is the sole authority over public decisions regarding the environment and the Quebec territory. Until we achieve independence, however, certain environmental protection responsibilities fall to the federal government under the current legal framework. It is clear that the legislation needs to be modernized. There has not been an update in more than 20 years, since 1999. Canada has fallen very far behind other nations. No one is surprised, really. Canada has never managed to meet a single climate target and is lagging far behind the rest of the world in the fight against climate change. I am not surprised that Canada has such outdated environmental legislation. It is unfortunate and sad, but that is how it is. In 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development published a report containing 87 recommendations. One of those recommendations was to recognize the right to a healthy environment. Let us not be fooled, however. The Bloc Québécois did not fail to notice the partisan claims inserted into Bill S‑5. Elements pertaining to the right to a healthy environment are found in CEPA's preamble, but their scope remains very limited. This means that they have no impact on other Canadian laws. While the bill would add the protection of this right to the federal government's mission, the proposed amendments would not necessarily create a true fundamental right to live in a healthy environment. To have a real impact, this right would have to be entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2006, Quebec introduced the right to a healthy environment in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.” This right was entrenched in our laws in Quebec in 2006. In Quebec's political context, the Quebec charter, unlike CEPA, is quasi-constitutional in scope, no matter what our colleagues from other parties believe. Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect Quebeckers' fundamental rights. Over a year ago, on October 8, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council recognized that having a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right and called on “States around the world to work together, and with other partners, to implement this newly recognized right”. In a statement, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights “called on States to take bold actions to give prompt and real effect to the right to a healthy environment”. Over 100 countries have already recognized this right constitutionally, while Canada is just getting around to including it in a law that does not have any real scope. That is not surprising coming from a country that is addicted to oil and gas, but it is obviously very disappointing. It is not surprising, but it is disappointing. Enshrining the right to a healthy environment in law is a good first step, and the Bloc Québécois welcomes that. That is why we will support Bill S-5. Bill S‑5 contains a number of technical aspects that should be carefully examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This modernization should truly enable the government to fulfill its environmental protection responsibilities while respecting Quebec's sovereignty over vulnerable populations, chemical management, the list of toxic substances, the strengthening of risk management accountability, the overall assessment of the cumulative effects of substances, and mandatory labelling requirements. The Bloc Québécois wants to work with all parliamentarians so that the repealed act reflects the recommendations of health and environmental protection groups and chemical industry partners as well as possible. For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be vigilant in studying this bill.

850 words

All Topics

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

Oct/24/22 5:04:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S‑5. This bill aims to modernize the entire environmental protection framework, and we understand full well that this is a shared responsibility. How does my colleague see the federal and provincial governments working together to protect this right to a healthy environment?

62 words

All Topics