SoVote

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

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

Oct/24/22 5:49:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, much has been said in this debate about the Progressive Conservatives of the seventies, eighties and early nineties, and the incredible work they did to protect our environment. As I listened to the member speak, I could not help but reflect on the fact that she was actually a senior policy adviser to the then minister of environment back in the mid-eighties, when Brian Mulroney tackled huge challenges like the ozone layer and acid rain. Can she take this opportunity to reflect on those years of Progressive Conservatives and expand on whether she thinks the Conservative Party today is coming from the same place the Progressives, like Flora MacDonald and Brian Mulroney, came from in the eighties?

120 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

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

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

Oct/24/22 5:51:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Green Party for her speech. I want to get her input on the idea of competitiveness. She knows I come from a community that does a lot of manufacturing with plastics. We try to make cars lighter and integrate it into the manufacturing. My concern is the way plastics are being treated in this bill. Inadvertently, we may be driving the pollution to other parts of the world. For example, I brought up that 93% of the plastic going into the oceans is from 10 rivers, and none of them is in Canada. There is the Yangtze River in China, for example. The carbon footprint for the lifetime of a plastic straw is about 1.5 grams, whereas for a paper straw it is 4.1 grams. We are putting in these policies that may affect our competitiveness here in North America. What is the member's advice to make sure we do not have that pollution leakage to other parts of the world, like China, because of our policies being too strong or different here?

186 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May

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

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Oct/24/22 5:54:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the member spoke a bit about the right to a healthy environment. Can she share more about the implications of that right being only in the preamble of the bill, as well as these words about it being balanced with other factors, including economic ones? What are the implications of this so-called right being balanced against other factors? Lastly, would she share more about how this could be improved in future stages of the legislation?

78 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/24/22 5:55:12 p.m.
Watch

I apologize, but we need to resume debate. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

17 words

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here speaking to Bill S-5. Although I have some major concerns about it, it is an important step that we are taking and I look forward to seeing the next steps that are completed. I live in a rainforest. One thing we are very sure of in my area of the world is that things in our area are usually wet, even when it is very, very hot. We have now lived through several months of having hardly any rain, so we are now in a situation in my area where we are in a drought. We cannot do any kind of burning, because the risk of forest fire is too big. That is because there is a change in the environment that is having such a meaningful impact that all Canadians should be very concerned. I know the people in my riding are very concerned. I remember one day it rained here in Ottawa. Because I am from an area with a rainforest, I really enjoy rain and was happy to see it. I had so many constituents reach out to me and say they would really appreciate it if I could bring the rain home with me. It is something we can laugh about, but it is also something my area is very concerned about. As we move forward on any bill that says we need to recognize the right to a healthy environment, I am all in. I want to be part of that, and we need to do better. We know that across this planet over 150 countries have made this commitment. They have legal obligations they are accountable for. Canada still has not taken that step, so we need to see that action. A lot of Canadians are watching what is happening and want to see action that means something. Quite honestly, we keep seeing something in this place that is not taking the next step. I will be talking about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act today, which I will keep calling CEPA. This bill would amend CEPA to recognize the right to a healthy environment, confirm the government's commitment to implementing UNDRIP under the act and strengthen the chemicals management plan, including the need to take into consideration vulnerable populations and cumulative events. It has been more than 20 years since this has been done, and modernization in this day and age could not be more important. It could not be more of a priority. These last few years, in my riding, we have had some challenging times. I talked about one earlier, but I also want to talk about the fact that not too long ago we saw the ZIM Kingston incident in our area, where there was a significant spill of about 109 containers. Of those containers, about four washed up on shore in my riding. Just in case people do not understand, my riding is very remote. A lot of those beautiful beaches along the coastline are hard to get to, and people do not see them often. When one starts receiving images from constituents showing a beach full of plastic toys and refrigerators, one feels very concerned about it. When we look at this, we know contamination is not only having an impact on our bodies, and I will talk about that in a bit, but also having a significant impact on the oceans around my area. In the last few months, in the late spring, I was over in Savary Island, which is one of many communities in my riding, picking up waste. It was huge. The community came out and people were cleaning up the beaches and pulling things out of the ocean. I had an opportunity to talk to Catherine and Paul, and we had chats about nurdles. For those who do not know, nurdles are tiny little pieces of styrofoam. I am going to use that word, because most people are familiar with it. They get everywhere. If one has ever had the experience of trying to clean them off the beach, one realizes how hard it is. What is even more concerning, of course, is that it continues to contaminate the ocean atmosphere for fish and other wildlife, and that really concerns me. I think of the work the community has done on having petitions sent to the House, which I have been happy to read for this place, to talk about how we are going to start to address that and make sure there is not that waste in the marine environment and in some of the industries out on the water. I thank Angela from Fishing for Plastic, who has also been a big part of that. One of the things that concerns me about this bill is what we have seen in the Senate. We saw a letter that went to the Senate from some of Canada's biggest polluters, and they are trying to block amendments. They are trying to say do not go that far. At some point we have to decide. Are we going to continue to hope and wait to see if some sort of miracle will happen and we will not be in this environmental crisis that we are in right now, or are we actually going to take action? I know there is a lot of push. There are a lot of industries telling us that we cannot take that next step, but I think it is absolutely important that we do. We know that CEPA is Canada's main law to regulate toxic substances. We know that we are seeing more and more indicators that there are toxic substances in a lot of things, and there is not a lot of accountability around what they are. That means in our communities we are using things that may cause harm and we just do not know about it. Those are some of the things we need to address. We know that the Senate did make some positive amendments. I really appreciated their removing some of the troubling language around the right to a healthy environment. It should be balanced with relevant factors. Again, it seems like a simple choice for me. I know that not all of my friends in this place agree, but at some point either we are going to choose a healthy environment and put investment and support into moving in that direction or we are going to continue down the same path that we are on. It is not a safe path. There are some things that I am very concerned about in this bill, some troubling weaknesses and loopholes that we would like to see amended. I talked earlier about strengthening the right to a healthy environment and not seeing limiting factors, and how that right is applied is really important. We also need to see some work done ensuring that toxic substances' assessments are kept up to date as the scientific understanding of risks evolves and exposure increases. Why I think this is so important is that businesses are really good at knowing the rules. I appreciate that. That is their job, to know the rules, but they can often find ways to move around them. We need to make sure, as we move forward with CEPA, that there are assessments happening rigorously through time so that we can always keep up to date with that scientific understanding so that we are mitigating those risks. I think everybody in this country understands how important that is. We also need to improve public accountability and require clear guidelines and timelines for the management of toxic substances. This is just about accountability. I talk to everyday Canadians. I have talked to, in my riding, some people who are very environmentally aware and have very specific notions of where they want to go. I have also talked to people who just want it to get better and they do not know what to do with that information. One of the things I hear from them is that they do not feel like the systems are clear enough for them to be able to understand it as an everyday Canadian. They are busy. They have a lot of things happening. I think it is important that we have that public accountability, and it should be not only public but accessible. I will talk about this forever. I have served a lot of people with different challenges, whether it be in their ability to speak a language because they have come from another country, a lack of education or a developmental issue. Accountability and accessible information has always been one of the biggest challenges, so I hope to see that as well. I also think it is important that there is mandatory labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products. We are still seeing a lack of formal understanding here. This is something that is not in the bill that I think needs to be amended. We need to make sure that we are transparent with people. Of course, we need to address pollution hot spots in this country. We have to acknowledge as a country that they are often in indigenous, racialized and low-income communities. This is something that all of us should take into serious account. This bill, at this point, does not deal with this in a way that I think is as powerful and meaningful as it could be. We need to address this issue. We need to take accountability for the fact that environmental distress and indigenous justice, racialized justice and low-income justice are totally intersectional. They are a place that we need to take accountability and start addressing this in a more meaningful way. As I said, I am going to support this to be sent to committee. I certainly hope to see all parties work together to get some of this important work done, because it needs to be accessible. Everyday Canadians need to understand the rules so that they can hold to account the corporations that will be working within those rules.

1696 words

All Topics

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

Oct/24/22 6:05:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the member was speaking about plastics and the need to curb our usage of those plastics. The reality of the situation is that the very first piece of plastic that was ever made is still in existence today, and it will likely be hundreds if not thousands of years before it is no longer around. We continually hear the narrative from the Conservatives that we need specialized plastics in certain types of aircraft; therefore, we cannot get rid of plastics and we should abandon all hope of even trying to pick the low-hanging fruit. The reality is that, although with some types of aircraft there are specialized plastics that we still need right now, we do know that other things like straws could be replaced with other options. Would the member not agree that, even though we cannot move forward with some of these specialized plastics that we need, there are other areas we could look to curb plastic use and plastic consumption?

166 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Oct/24/22 6:06:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I do agree, but I also think that part of this is understanding there is innovation in this country. When we look at what is happening in our environment, it seems that it is often a discussion of right now change or no change at all. I think there is a progression that needs to happen, but that needs to be really invested in and the rules need to be in place. I agree. I think we need to do our work. I have heard from some folks from the disability community who have said to me really clearly that there are some uses of plastic that are really important to them, and we need to listen to those voices. However, there is so much innovation that needs to be invested in. Quite frankly, we need rules put in place in this country so that it pushes innovation. Things do not get done if there is not a rule that they have to meet, so let us make sure those rules are in place so that we can get to that innovation. I believe it is possible, because a long time ago none of us thought we would be flying in a plane but we are. Let us see what innovation can happen in the next while.

219 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Oct/24/22 6:09:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and I appreciate how much environmental issues matter to her. One thing I want to know is why the agreement between the NDP and the Liberals is based on issues that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Also, since they were so focused on provincial issues, why not include the environment too? Now that the blank cheque is signed and the agreement is in place, my colleague will have to support the many gag orders that the Liberal Party will impose under the guise of strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada. What are my colleague's thoughts on the Liberals' decision to resume oil exploration by approving Bay du Nord and on the fact that they seem to be doing anything but protecting the environment for a healthier Canada?

137 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Oct/24/22 6:10:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I agree. As a very proud Canadian, even with the many challenges that this country faces, I am willing to face them with the people of my country. It is important that we work well with the provinces and territories, but we also have to make sure that there is a set of standards. New Democrats are continuing to push the government, forcing it, quite frankly, into doing things that we feel will make a significant difference in Canadians' lives, and I will continue to do that. The environment is really struggling, but we need to stand up and do it right, collectively as a country.

108 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Oct/24/22 6:11:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill S-5, a very important and much-needed piece of legislation to revise and strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. It has been over 20 years since this act has been updated, so we really need to get this legislation through and make sure we have a good conversation about all aspects of it. This act has a long title, but its real impact is best conveyed in the short title, which is “strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada”. There are so many constituents in my green riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, green due to its spectacular rains, outdoor spaces, trails and kettle lakes, not necessarily because of its political persuasion, who are advocates for stronger environmental protection. They are champions for preserving green spaces, people like Sue Walmer, Jan Oudenes and Isobel Ralston, who were in Ottawa this week for a summit on the vital work of land trusts. They are activists fighting to protect Canadian health through regulating harmful substances like Gloria Marsh from the York Region Environmental Alliance, champions of greater efficiencies in buildings to reduce carbon emissions like Walter Bauer, and those fighting for animal welfare through strengthened animal protection regulations like Wayne King and Judith Goldberg. There are many more in my riding and many people across our country. We know it is not limited because studies have shown that nine in 10 Canadians are concerned about children's exposure to toxins in consumer products, for example, and impacts on wildlife, such as birds and fish. There are 92% of Canadians who agree that Canada should recognize Canadians' right to live in a healthy environment. That is why I am proud, as an environmentalist and a member of the environment committee, to fight for Bill S-5 and the fact that we are recognizing that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment. These amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act represent the Liberal government's promise to devote more energy to current environmental issues. Environmental issues and Canadians' well-being go hand in hand, so these issues call for a comprehensive approach. Let us talk about one of the main components of this bill, the right to a healthy environment. It is the first time this language has been introduced into federal legislation and it was one of the key themes of the 2017 environmental report. It builds into the framework of Bill S-5 core principles, such as environmental justice, intergenerational equality and non-regression. It is a key step in ensuring that all Canadians will have recourse if they feel their health is at risk. The language also heavily integrates indigenous concerns and consultation into the process of environmental stewardship, drawn on language from and ensuring Canada's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. It would require the minister to development an implementation framework, and the process of developing this framework would be open to public consultation and input from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This would ensure that this right under this act would address many of the concerns that have been raised here today. One of the aspects of the bill that has not been discussed so far is the reduction of animal testing. As an animal rights activist myself, I feel that this is a very important aspect. This would address our commitment to end animal testing and reliance on animal testing. We know that there are times when this is necessary, but we are making a commitment to only use animal testing of vertebrates when absolutely necessary and to work on making sure that there are alternatives so that we no longer have to test toxic substances on animals. Canada and other key international partners, such as the United States and the European Union, are moving toward phasing out animal toxicity testing where possible. It is an issue of concern for many Canadians, such as, as I mentioned, some of my own constituents and me. It is a sign of our government's commitment to increasing the use of non-animal testing methods. I have consulted and talked to numerous parties about this change, including Animal Justice, the Humane Society International and Humane Canada. We are also working on the mandatory labelling of products containing toxic substances. We are committed to this and we are going to be working on providing a complete framework as to how this should best be done and making sure that imported and domestic products are required to have the same kind of labelling. There would be a new regulatory framework for the substitution of chemicals. There would also be new categories to highlight areas of concern, like carcinogenic and mutagenic substances and substances that are harmful to reproductive health. We are going further with this bill, and I know that my dear friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned that she had some concern about this. I am really looking forward to working with her and other members at committee, as we bring this bill forward, to make sure that all concerns are addressed and that the bill really does address the concerns of all Canadians in this area and many others. I am committed to a Canada that protects our health and the health of all of us. We need to get this bill to committee so we can study it further, look at the amendments the Senate has made and ensure we get it through and update the 1999 legislation. I feel it is very important that we continue to work together, continue to work across levels of government and continue to work with all parties to ensure that this commitment to having a healthy environment and healthy Canadians moves forward. All the good things about this bill should be built upon. Let us get it through so that we finally update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. I am happy to answer questions.

1015 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Oct/24/22 6:18:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I think that is a very important issue, and knowing what substances are in these products is important. There is language in the bill addressing this and it will be studied further. I look forward to having that conversation in committee and to trying to strengthen this bill as much as possible.

54 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Oct/24/22 6:20:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am willing to work across the aisle and willing to work with anyone to improve the environment and address issues that will lead to a healthier Canada. There is language in this bill about removing substances when they are no longer used in Canada, and I certainly hope that toxic substances are no longer being used in Canada. I think that would address the member's concern.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Oct/24/22 6:20:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill mentioned animal testing specifically in her speech and that there is language in Bill S-5 that moves in the right direction. Specifically, there is mention of encouraging the development of other alternatives. I wonder if the member could comment more on whether she feels this is sufficient and/or if more could be done.

70 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Oct/24/22 6:21:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am a believer in “better is always possible”, so I think more can be done. I think we need to look at this carefully. I have a dear friend who is suffering from ovarian cancer. She is a doctor of veterinary medicine, and currently there is testing being done at the University of Guelph on cows that have ovarian cancer. In some cases, when there are no options available, I support testing on animals, but I think we have to do everything we can to find find substitutes and to only use this testing when it is absolutely necessary. I would like to strengthen that as well.

112 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Oct/24/22 6:22:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I guess hope is eternal and something is always possible. I know that at the environment committee, in working with members of all parties, we try to find common ground. I do not want to have debates about whether climate change is real, as we are far beyond that, but I believe we can work together to try to move forward, because everybody feels that a heathier Canada and a healthier environment are good not only for Canadians but for all citizens around the world. I hope we can work together.

93 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen

Oct/24/22 6:36:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague on the government operations and estimates committee and what she brought to the committee. She is right. I have two grandchildren, and I am so proud of them. My youngest grandchild is only four months old. I want to see them have something here as we move forward, and those are steps that need to be taken. That is what I think part of this legislation needs to have, and I love to hear comments on that from the Bloc and the member on the Liberal side who talked about working together. Those are the steps I think need to be done. We need to sit here, put those issues out there and banter back and forth, because that is what the public expects us to do and wants us to do.

141 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Oct/24/22 6:37:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. He is a good friend. I really appreciated working with him on OGGO when he was our previous chair. I am really grateful that my colleague voted for my Motion No. 51 back in 2018 to tackle plastic pollution and reduce plastics in our environment. He supported the banning of straws and different plastics. Does he not agree that we have a duty to ensure that, when there are chemical ingredients that are known or suspected to cause cancer or harm the reproductive or endocrine systems, it should be mandatory to require the labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products, which is what we are calling for in this bill? Would he support an amendment to support that?

129 words

All Topics