SoVote

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

Oct/24/22 9:09:16 p.m.
Watch

Oh boy, do I ever, Mr. Speaker. I think I would need a whole other speech just to address that. What I would point out is that there is currently a bill in front of the foreign affairs committee, Bill S-211, that deals with supply chain reporting. It deals with big companies that operate in the west or in Canada. In particular, they would have to do a report on the impacts of their companies on human trafficking and forced labour. That is for sure a bill I would like to get passed. The other thing is what the Americans are doing. They are identifying the province of Xinjiang as a place where forced labour is a problem, so for any products that are coming out of that area, there is a reverse onus and companies must prove that forced labour is not being used in their products. That is another initiative that I could get behind, and I look forward to the government moving on that.

168 words

All Topics

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Oct/24/22 9:10:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Peace River—Westlock for the work he does on human trafficking. He did not talk a lot about how perhaps the Uighurs have been subjected to that. He talked a lot about organ harvesting, and we know about that through the work of David Kilgour. We know it is happening and how atrocious it is. I wonder if the member could expand a bit on any elements of human trafficking that there may be with the Uighurs in China.

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Oct/24/22 9:10:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for highlighting the work I do in combatting human trafficking both here in Canada and around the world. Human trafficking for the Uighur population mostly looks like forced labour. It is a big challenge for Canada to identify who is being trafficked and forced into labour in some instances. In some places, it is not at all. In some instances, people who have worked for a company for 20 years got their job all on their own and they are of the Uighur ethnicity or religion but have moved into the city and now work there. Sometimes we struggle or grapple with how to identify a person who took that job on their own and another person who has been trafficked into it, but it is definitely the case that it happens.

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Oct/24/22 9:11:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start my brief remarks by saying that I thought, at least at the onset of this debate, that there would be a great show of unity about an issue that strikes at the very core of who we are as Canadians, which means to stand up for those who are being persecuted. However, I was very disappointed, specifically by some members of the government who did not use this opportunity to make a stand of unity but instead tried to score cheap political points. We are debating today an important issue. It is something that many Canadians are probably unaware of but have probably seen the impacts of, whether that be forced labour, human trafficking, forced organ donations or the whole host of actions that have led this place and many around the world to state very clearly that there is a genocide taking place against the Uighur and Turkic Muslim people in China. It is especially important that we have this debate today, because we come to this debate after the Chinese Communist Party closed its five-year annual convention, where the current leadership of the People's Republic of China and the Communist Party, that one-party dictatorship, has, with a heavy hand, shut down discourse, which has led to, in this case, systematic persecution against a minority population that needs Canada's support and needs the world's support. In the very short amount of time that I have, I would simply say that it behooves us all to ensure that we stand up for those who are being persecuted, that we stand up for human rights and that we take the actions that are outlined in this motion and with the vote that will be coming, I believe, on Wednesday, to ensure that this Parliament makes a clear statement to say that we stand for religious freedom and we stand for the rights of minorities, and to ensure that Canada's Parliament, the voice of the people in our nation, stand with the Uighur people who have faced systematic persecution. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to a strong show of support in Canada's Parliament.

370 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/24/22 9:14:28 p.m.
Watch

It being 9:14 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

88 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Oct/24/22 9:15:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

9 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/24/22 9:15:25 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, October 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. It being 9:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 9:15 p.m.)

64 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

Oct/24/22 2:22:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at an automotive industry conference last week in Windsor, the Minister of Finance publicly contradicted the Prime Minister when she stated that the federal government will have to tighten its belt in the coming months to avoid increasing inflation inadvertently. This announcement about reducing new budget measures was a surprise to some, as the Prime Minister has been doing the opposite since 2015. The costly Liberal-NDP coalition is finally admitting that its out-of-control spending has fuelled inflation. Can it now admit that tripling the carbon tax is a bad idea and that it increases the cost of living?

103 words

Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.)

Oct/24/22 6:21:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her work on the environment committee. What piqued my interest is when she talked about working across the aisle and trying to do better things for Canadians and the environment by working with the opposition. I would ask her to consider this. How can we look across the aisle and work with the opposition when on a daily basis we get such a kickback every time we try to come up with an environmental initiative? It gets very frustrating, from my point of view. I would be interested in the member's thoughts on how we might be able to break through.

111 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

Oct/24/22 6:23:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today as we debate Bill S-5, a piece of legislation that would make significant changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, otherwise known as CEPA. CEPA has not had any major modifications made to it since it was passed in 1999, so there are a lot of aspects of this bill that would have major impacts on the lives of Canadians and on industry, especially as they relate to certain substances and materials. When people think of the word “legislation”, they expect wording that is clear and concise. Given that bills are eventually enshrined into our laws, it is reasonable to assume that much thought and intention has gone into the words that are being used, and that there is no opportunity for confusion or room for interpretation that could lead to problems for the government in the long term. One part of the bill that falls under that category, in my view, is the right to a healthy environment, which is in the preamble and not in the legislation. I want to be clear that all of my Conservative colleagues and I firmly believe in and support the right to a healthy environment for each and every Canadian. We are so fortunate to live in a country that contains so many different ecosystems and is filled with natural beauty from coast to coast to coast. It is understandable that we want to be sure that our healthy environment is present and thriving all across the country, not just today but for future generations as well. The challenge with this is that it is undefined. Having wording that is open to interpretation on such an important matter like this could create issues down the road. If this piece of legislation needs to be revisited years from now because of a lack of clarity, it will cost the taxpayer money. The ideal situation would be to add a definition now or when the bill goes to committee to ensure that we are not going to run into any issues and that there is clarity over what this important right really means. We also want be sure that the use of vague terminology without a proper definition does not potentially lead to litigation. I do not believe that this is the intent of the bill, so this needs to be tightened up to provide absolutely certainty regarding the definition. I bring this up because most Canadians watching this are expecting to see us around a table working out some good legislation. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture is quoted as saying the “real role” of the opposition parties is to improve legislation and programming. Hopefully the government is prepared to make some amendments to this going forward, with consideration given to our feedback. It sure sounds good in the media to say that this right is important and is a priority, but if there are no measures for progress and no benchmarks outlined in the legislation, how is anyone going to know that we have actually done the work? It seems like including the right to a healthy environment in Bill S-5 is more about getting a good sound bite than actually improving the lives of Canadians and our environment. Another thing that I am concerned about with respect to this particular part of the bill is that it gives the minister two years to come up with an implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment, when we know that it took five years just to consult with the public. If this is an essential right, why is it going to take so long for the minister to come up with a simple definition of what this right looks like? To me, it cannot be a priority if it is going to take years to come up with a framework around the issue, let alone the time it would take to actually implement it. Why does the government struggle so hard to do more than one thing at a time? This part of the bill is yet another virtue-signalling policy that does not do a single thing to help the environment and does a disservice to Canadians. What the Liberals do not understand is that this needs to be done correctly, transparently and in a timely manner, something we have learned the government is unfortunately incapable of doing. Another aspect of the bill that I have some concern about has to do with plastics, specifically with the word “toxic” being removed from the title of the schedule but still being referred to everywhere else in the legislation. Again, this creates confusion and a lack of clarity for anyone who might read the bill going forward. It also seems to me that the time and money being spent on this would be put to better use if they were invested in things like recycling and clean technology, rather than vilifying an industry and product that every single person in the House uses every day. Just think for a second about how essential plastics are in our day-to-day lives. The houses we live in, the cars we drive, the public transit we take and the technology that allows us to do our jobs, like phones and computers, all rely on plastic. Plastics are also irreplaceable in many fields of medicine and science, and without them, we would not have had the necessary PPE that was used during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as things like IV lines, IV bags, intubation tubes, feeding tubes, syringes and valves, respirators and ventilators, oxygen masks, rehabilitation equipment and suction cups, not to mention the children's toys that placated families when they were sitting at home and isolated. While I understand that plastic is not perfect, it makes no sense that our government continues to vilify a product and an industry that continually makes our lives better and easier, and allows us to live as comfortably as we do. I was fortunate to be given a tour of the Heartland Petrochemical Complex near Fort Saskatchewan while it was in its development stage, and as of July 5, it was officially opened. In fact, the Minister of Tourism and Associate Finance Minister was in attendance. This polypropylene plant will generate 65% fewer GHGs than average global plants. It also uses air cooling and not water cooling, which reduces water use by 80%. This facility will result in food packaging, textiles, health care products, medical supplies and more. Furthermore, it is able to reduce GHGs as it now has two carbon capture and storage units, and it is building a third, thus protecting the environment. It avoids shipping propane via truck, train and ship to overseas producers who will create the plastic beads that are shipped back to Canada. This reduces emissions and the risk of safety issues. Let us not forget that this government gave $49 million for this complex. I would like to speak to Senate amendments 17 and 18, which would create new obligations for industries that use living organisms in their work. The new obligations would require both the minister and the industry to conduct private consultations for each living organism produced in Canada. I am no laboratory scientist, but I was a regulator at an industry for many years before becoming a member of Parliament. One thing that I firmly believe, based on that experience, is that the industry should regulate itself. As soon as the government starts getting overly involved, things start getting complicated to the detriment of the industry and the taxpayer, due to the extra level of red tape and the inherent cost associated with it. While there are areas of Bill S-5 that do cut red tape, which I am certainly supportive of, these particular amendments would do the opposite by creating a redundant process. In my view, the government should be focused on making things clearer and more straightforward through the removal of these extra, unnecessary steps, rather than adding more. We know that the bill is not much more than an effort to modernize bureaucracy rather than one that is focused on environment policy, so I am unsure as to why the government would want to increase the burden for the industry, which already does a world-class job with its public consultations. Furthermore, this additional step would not do anything to improve the already stringent safety measures that are used by the industry today. Doing double the consultation does not equal double the safety or protection against harm. It would also have the potential to set a dangerous precedent for chemicals in general, which is something that is a major concern. Ultimately, we need to realize that there are existing regulatory processes and practices in place, and that the people who are best placed to carry out these practices are the experts, the industry. The last part of the bill that I want to touch on is the provision that would allow for any person to request the minister assess whether a substance is capable of becoming toxic. I believe it is essential that all appropriate safety measures are taken with respect to substances, but I have serious concerns that this policy could open the door for hundreds if not thousands of requests given the wide scope of it. This government has a dismal record when it comes to clearing backlogs, as I am sure many veterans who have been waiting years for their disability benefits could tell us. The last thing they need is yet another backlog to clear, which would also likely come with financial implications and cost to the taxpayer due to the need to hire more people to assist in processing these requests. It is a mess waiting to happen, and I strongly encourage that this measure be reconsidered so that we can avoid yet another bureaucratic nightmare. The fact of the matter is that, while this government tries to convince everyone that it is the ultimate champion of Canada's environment, it has missed every single emissions target it has set, and has only hurt hard-working Canadians through ineffective policies such as the carbon tax. My constituents have zero trust left in this government's ability to make life better for them, so I do hope that the Liberals will listen to the feedback given on Bill S-5 and make the necessary changes for this piece of legislation to do the job it is intended to do.

1771 words

All Topics

Mr. Robert Kitchen

Oct/24/22 6:34:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, knowing the level of knowledge this gentleman has, I am sure he is well aware of the fact that the original legislation was put forward by his government back in the last Parliament and that the Senate has proposed some amendments to it. The unfortunate part is that, although some of the amendments being proposed may have good steps, some of them do not, and those steps need to be taken as we move forward. With respect to plastics, I would agree with the member if someone had the knowledge to come up with another product, but at the present time we are moving propane and other dangerous chemicals via ship, truck or train, and putting the lives of Canadians at risk when we could actually be producing it here in Canada. We can produce these nice wee pebbles that can be used to produce many products that we need, such as the parts we need for our vehicles, our new electric vehicles, or other items we have in this country.

173 words

All Topics

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

Oct/24/22 6:33:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep talking about this as though it is as a government bill. I would remind the member that the burgundy shade on the screen where it lists the name of the bill, along with the S in front of it, means that it came from the Senate. It is not a government bill. Nonetheless, the way the Conservatives are approaching this is that as we have to use so many plastics nowadays, therefore we may as well give up and assume that plastics are inevitably going to be as abundant as they are now forever. Yes, I am aware, and I am sure most people are aware of the fact that just about everything in this room has some degree of plastic in it, but does that mean that we cannot at least strive for a better world? If we know that plastics are so bad, that the very first plastic ever created is still in existence today, and the harm they are doing to our environment, why would we not at least try to do better? Why can we not at least look for ways to do things differently, even if it means that today we are still going to be using plastic? Why can we not look toward a future that has less plastic in it? Would the member not agree that is a good thing?

232 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Oct/24/22 6:35:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that commonsensical speech. I know how important health is to him. I know how much he wants to see his children, his grandchildren and perhaps, with luck, his great-grandchildren grow up and be happy in a world where their health is not constantly at risk. In his speech, he talked about wording that is vague and, yes, some of it is vague. What suggestions would he make in committee to tighten things up so the bill is clearer and can be implemented more quickly?

92 words

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

Oct/24/22 6:18:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's positive comments on the bill, but I think she may know, as others do, that one of the things I really want to see is mandatory labelling of heavy metals and toxic chemicals on consumer products, which is not in the bill at present. As I have referred to several times in this debate, we found that in dollar stores, lots of the products that have been tested contain heavy metals and toxic chemicals. Would the member's party be willing to consider amendments that would make mandatory labelling of these consumer products available to parents so they can decide what they are going to expose their families to?

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Oct/24/22 6:07:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the right to a healthy environment. I know she talked about some of the changes that the Senate made. However, I find it really important. The member mentioned that it should be clear what the rules are. When we use the term “right” in this place, we could open up the Constitution Act, 1982, and see the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where they are very clear and they are laid out. I would just like to find out if the NDP member would agree that what the government has put in Bill S-5 and is billing as a “right to a healthy environment” is a fraud. Again, a right is something that is enforceable. This is something that, through the CEPA process, a bureaucrat would determine, through other socio-economic factors, this so-called “right to a healthy environment.” A right is either a right or it is something else. Would the member stand in her place and tell us whether she agrees it is an actual right or an outright fraud?

185 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Oct/24/22 7:10:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize for earlier drawing attention to the fact that there were no members of the official opposition in the House for the member's speech. I apologize for saying that.

33 words

All Topics

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for talking about how she is prepared to work with the opposition to try to make changes to the legislation as it goes to committee. That is a good sign. We see in the legislation the scheduling of toxic products. It talks about how to put products onto schedule 1 or schedule 2, but what it does not talk about is how we take them off when scientists find out that a product is no longer toxic. Would the member be prepared to move forward with putting in legislation that would change that to allow steps to be put in place to make certain that toxic products that are no longer considered toxic can actually be removed?

123 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Oct/24/22 6:09:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the House. I know it has been a long time, but back in 2016, I put forward a private member's bill that was on the right to housing, which I wanted added to the bill of rights in Canada. What we are looking at right now, of course, is so many people unhoused across this country and no accountability on a federal level. There is no mechanism for people to step up and say that this is not being done. Do I think the Liberals could do better on this language? Absolutely, I do. Will our party amend that? Absolutely, we will. Do I think that Canadians deserve a right to a healthy environment? I absolutely do, and I am willing to stand in the House and vote for that any day of the week.

143 words

All Topics