SoVote

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

Oct/24/22 12:33:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I know it really bothers the Greens that the New Democrats are talking about a vision of moving ahead, because we believe in jobs as well as in economy that is based on sustainability. I know it get their backs up a little, but this issue is about where we are going as a nation with respect to a coherent strategy. Bill S-5 is part of that. We have to be sending a message to the nation, but also to the investment community that Canada gets the fact that we need to have proper standards. We need to have those standards in order to draw investment, in order to create a transformative economy. Nice words alone will not cut it. Nice words from the Prime Minister will not cut it. Crazy talk from Danielle Smith will definitely not cut it. We need to do better.

161 words

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

Oct/24/22 12:34:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the way the member opened up his speech this afternoon. He talked specifically about the difference between the current Conservative Party and the Conservative Party that it likes to identify itself with, which was the Brian Mulroney Conservative Party. Brian Mulroney did some pretty incredible things. He brought 46 countries from across the world to Montreal to establish a protocol on protecting the ozone layer. He spent a decade pushing Washington to do something about acid rain before it finally agreed. I wonder if the member could enlighten the House on this. If it is not the Brian Mulroney Conservative Party across the way, what exactly is across the way?

115 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Oct/24/22 12:35:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, imagine someone asking me to defend the legacy of Brian Mulroney, but that is the state of politics in our country today. The one thing we could say about the Conservative Party, the then Progressive Conservatives, is that it understood that protecting heritage and environment mattered. We do have a Prime Minister who is supposed to be the environmental feminist Prime Minister, and yet oil production has gone up under his watch and I think, if we look, subsidies to oil have gone up over the Conservatives. We are seeing a disconnect on both sides. What is missing in the House is that we do not have a Progress Conservative Party anymore. We have the convoy party. We have the World Economic Forum disinformation team, and it has formed government in Alberta, which is scaring investors away because it is coming up with some of the most crazy stuff we have ever seen. I would take any of the Robert Stanfields, Joe Clarks, the Flora MacDonalds, the Conservatives who could actually stand up. However, on the other hand, we are still dealing with those Liberals and they are like Teletubbies. They keep bouncing up with more promises, but they are not delivering the jobs we need in western Canada and in the oil patch.

216 words

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

Oct/24/22 12:36:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure what to think of the reference to Teletubbies. This is the second time the member has mentioned this. The member talked about the economy and how important it was that it worked with our environment, like with sustainable environment and economic development, these types of things. Before we know it, my colleague will be talking about the importance of the middle class and how we have to ensure that we enable people to become a part of the middle class. I want to ask my colleague and friend a question. When we think of Bill S-5, many of the things it would do is make Canada's environment protection laws stronger and ultimately make Canada healthier. Would he not agree with that summation?

131 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Oct/24/22 12:37:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, it is very important we pass the bill, and I am shocked the Conservatives, of all things, are embracing toxic chemicals as a fight against the Liberals. I would have spoken much more about the middle class, but the Liberals sure have done a pretty good job over the years with their neo-liberal policies of kicking the middle class back into the working class. We need to maintain that, but part of that is certainty. The Conservatives are talking about mining projects getting off the ground in three years. That is ridiculous. I come from mining country. Mining development requires consultation with indigenous communities. It requires doing the heavy lifting. Once we have done that, we have certainty. I will talk about many mining companies and how that certainty is essential for reassuring the long-term development and that investors understand we are doing it right. We need to have that climate in Canada.

157 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Oct/24/22 12:38:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Timmins—James Bay listened to my speech on Bill S-5 from the other day. I talked about how the ozone layer was fixed, how the acid rain stuff was fixed and how the automotive industry had really contributed to that. I am concerned about this bill. The right to a clean environment is like boiling the ocean. It is not very specific. I wonder if he has comments around that. Particularly, fixing the hole in the ozone layer and acid rain were very specific things we tackled. What specifically would this bill tackle?

103 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Oct/24/22 12:39:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, this is such an obvious motherhood statement. I find that the Conservatives are mistrustful of people having a right to a clean environment. It really does worry me about what they are thinking over there. Certainly, when they were going to dump the toxic sludge from Toronto's garbage into our water system in my region, we stood up and fought that, because we have a right. Every citizen has a right to a clean environment. I would hope that the one thing Conservatives could agree on with us is that, if nothing else, we should have a clean environment. Apparently that is not so.

107 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Oct/24/22 12:39:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my hon. colleagues who are present in this chamber today to talk about something that is really important. I am a young person and we have not updated this bill in 20 years. I was nine years old when this bill was passed, so it is about time that this House understand the impacts of the last 20 years and the importance of updating this legislation. I mean that in earnest. I know that we often talk about differences in this House, but it is a very true fact that every party has contributed to the reality of the protection of our environment. I hope every party can continue the legacy of Mulroney's Conservatives, the Liberal governments that have supported amendments and the New Democrats, who have pushed for an environmental bill of rights, for example. I know it is possible that we can, in fact, have a fulsome discussion about climate change, our role in protecting the environment and how we can come together in doing that. I want to preface my statements today with how remarkably beautiful Canada is. Each and every one of us, I am most certain, has been able to enjoy the majesty and beauty of what are Canada's beautiful and natural resources and sights. I am from Alberta. From the great Prairies all the way to the Rocky Mountains, we know how important this is for people. I can recall in my own life seeing the grandfathers for the first time. That is what we call these massive mountains in our Cree tradition. They are beautiful and majestic and have been there since time immemorial. It is truly a testament to the fact that our country is one of the greatest. Knowing that one of our greatest truths and our greatest assets is our natural beauty, it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to do our best to protect it. To leave this place better than how we found it is truly the mission I believe in. I want to acknowledge the countless number of advocates and activists who have made this possible. Without hearing from each and every one of those folks, we would not have the bill in front of us today. I do know there are some loopholes and issues in the bill, but the New Democrats stand in support of making sure we can get it to committee and work on it. I want to talk about what the bill would do. One, it is important to recognize that it would give Canadians an understanding that they have a right to a healthy environment. This could not be any more important now today for young people. When young people are looking at their futures, when they are looking at our country and when they are looking at the world, they are asking themselves where they fit in, what 2050 means to them, what 2030 means to them and what their lives will look like then. We owe it to the next generation to guarantee that they can live in a healthy environment. They deserve that. Two, the bill would confirm the government's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a step toward a kind of justice that indigenous people have been deprived of for generations regarding their role in this place and their role on these lands. The fact is that indigenous people continue today to steward these lands. I want to recognize one particular nation that is doing this right now and is up against one of the greatest fights for our natural beauty in Canada. It is the Mikisew Cree First Nation. The Mikisew Cree Nation is in the heart of the industrial lands of Fort McMurray. I met with them this summer to talk about their concerns with the fact that here in Canada we have a UNESCO world heritage site, Wood Buffalo National Park, that is under risk of being deregistered. I want that fact to sink in: A G7 country like Canada is failing to uphold environmental conditions so greatly that the UNESCO committee may withdraw the status of Wood Buffalo National Park. It is a true tragedy facing our parks. The Mikisew Cree Nation has played an immense role in protecting the lands of Wood Buffalo National Park, even before Confederation and since time immemorial. These lands are valuable. They contain within them the spirit, strength, knowledge and stories of generations, and we have to do our utmost to protect this place. The Mikisew Cree Nation is proposing that we create an indigenous conservation environmental survey group for Wood Buffalo National Park that would look at some of the ways we could implement UNDRIP, for example, in relation to this bill. The Mikisew Cree are also fearful of the toxic tailings ponds that are still present in northeast Alberta. They have spoken to me and asked that the Liberal government not allow the release of toxic tailings into the river. This is the most critical lifeline for the Mikisew Cree. The river is life. Water is life. We must do what we can to help the Mikisew Cree. Lastly, the bill would strengthen chemical management. This is so fundamental to a developed country like Canada. The fact that we fail to have more credible toxic management is why we are seeing terrible pollution in our natural waters. Water in Canada is one of the greatest beauties we have, and we know from activists like Autumn Peltier how valuable, spiritual and important clean water is to indigenous communities, to their spirituality, to their culture and to who they are. These three points in the bill, namely the right to a healthy environment, the confirmation of the government's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the strengthening of chemical management, are all principles the New Democrats stand for. We will support this bill, but we must ensure that we do not end there. We have so much more to do to protect our lands. Canada is at risk. We have faced some of the greatest natural disasters we have ever seen, from the great floods that saw central British Columbia almost cut off from the rest of Canada, to the Prairies, where I am from, which is seeing massive wildfires destroying whole communities, to the Atlantic coast, where we are seeing massive storms. This is the reality facing us as members of Parliament. Imagine how much worse this will get for the next generation. We must have courage. I implore this House to look at meaningful steps to protect our environment. These are the commitments found in the great treaties we have signed with indigenous people. To go back on these commitments now is to truly forsake the next generation and our future. When we speak about the need for industrial and economic strength in Canada, it must not come at the cost of the next generation's right to the environment. It must not. As a matter of fact, we know that we can do both. We can ensure a safe, strong, prosperous green economy here in Canada while preserving our greatest asset. It is possible. I do not believe the rhetoric from the delay Liberals and the deny Conservatives that we cannot do this. We can. I know our Parliament is divided often, but not on something so important as the lives of children of the next generation. I know that many members of the House have children. I ask them to please look deep within their eyes and understand that this is a threat to them and that we must do everything we can to protect this generation. Finally, I want to touch quickly on strengthening chemical management, the risk to some Albertans and the history that is already present there. The Jessa family, for example, has seen the terrible condition left to them by oil companies. They purchased land, posted by oil companies, for the purpose of wanting to start a life here in Canada, a good life, and they found that they were sold toxic lands. This is a family in Alberta right now that cannot recover land all by themselves. We are dealing with legacy issues in our environment, but this bill at least puts us on the path to stopping more atrocities like that.

1422 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Oct/24/22 12:49:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his passion for his province and for fresh water, which I share. As the hon. member will know, Bill S-5 was first introduced as Bill C-28 in this House, which was then Bill S-5 in the other place. I am going to preface my question with a shout-out to Senator McCallum from northern Manitoba, an indigenous senator who really made a big impact through amendments to the bill, those related to indigenous communities and peoples in Canada, by recognizing, as the hon. member has said, the importance of consistency with UNDRIP and recognizing traditional knowledge. I wonder if the hon. member would add some further reflections on the indigenous content and whether the bill has been improved. Will he work with the government to further improve the bill?

142 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Oct/24/22 12:50:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I stand committed to working with the hon. parliamentary secretary for the environment and the governing party to ensure we actually see results for indigenous people. This is a long-awaited bill. I want to thank Senator McCallum, who is a good friend of mine, for her continued advocacy and strength for indigenous people in the area of the environment. Our greatest challenge in Canada, which will likely continue to be our greatest challenge, is tackling climate change. Indigenous people have the tools, the knowledge and the histories that are so important to understanding this and, more so, understanding the solutions. I stand ready to work with the government to ensure this.

114 words

All Topics

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

Oct/24/22 12:51:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, the trouble I am having with this debate is that we are putting a lot of faith in a government that has made a lot of promises over the last seven years. It has failed in its boil water advisories plan for first nations and still allows and permits billions of litres of raw sewage to be dumped in our waterways. It has a Prime Minister who chastised indigenous protesters at an event and thanked them for their donation when they were protesting the fact he has failed to live up to his boil water advisories plan. I would like to ask my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach what his thoughts are on that. We are putting a lot of faith in a Prime Minister who has let us down over the last seven years.

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Oct/24/22 12:52:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to let the member know how deplorable the conditions are on reserves in first nations, Métis and Inuit communities in the far north in relation to clean water. They are deplorable, and I have spoken on this fact many times. Whether we can trust the government or not is the real question present to this House. The question is whether we as individual members of Parliament can ensure that our constituents and those we value, whom we want to ensure get good representation in this place, actually have a chance to have their voices heard and that the government puts that on record. There is no doubt that the government is untrustworthy in the promises made to indigenous people, but as indigenous people have done so many times before, they give so much grace and strength to the process of ensuring the relationship is better. Whether it is a Conservative or Liberal government, or maybe even one day a New Democratic government, I hope every party sees that the first and most important relationship to this place is with indigenous people.

190 words

All Topics

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Oct/24/22 12:53:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I was very touched by my colleague opposite's speech because I have children myself, and we are wondering what will happen in the coming decades. My question is quite simple. I heard the member opposite talking about how we can ensure that Canadians live in a healthy environment. I would like to know what measures are set out in the bill to create a healthier environment. I would like more details on that.

76 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Oct/24/22 12:53:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I know the Bloc has made significant contributions in this place to make sure there is good policy on the environment. I thank them for that. Additionally, I believe that two levers are most important in this bill. One is the fact that the government is finally ready to commit to understanding the impacts of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is critical and cannot be understated. Making sure indigenous people have a seat at the table will provide solutions.

87 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Oct/24/22 12:54:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, especially on matters related to the environment. As we know, I am my party's climate change critic. I am therefore very happy to speak about Bill S‑5. My colleague, the member for Repentigny, the Bloc Québécois's environment critic, has already informed the House of the Bloc Québécois's position on this bill. We are obviously in favour of the principle of Bill S‑5 because it is high time that the federal government take steps to modernize Canada's primary environmental protection legislation, known as CEPA. Passed in 1988, CEPA established a framework for managing toxic substances and gave ministers the authority to regulate sources of pollution. The revised act came into effect in 1999 and there have been few amendments since. That means that the legislation that is to protect Canada's environment is over 20 years old. A lot has changed in 20 years. Science has evolved, industry practices have evolved and, unfortunately, the environmental crisis has worsened. The update to CEPA is obviously good news, but members will not be surprised to hear me say that the Quebec nation is and must be solely responsible for public decisions concerning environmental protection in its jurisdiction. Moreover, in April 2022, all members in Quebec's National Assembly passed a motion affirming Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment. To be clear, Quebec's elected representatives strongly stated their opposition to any federal interference in the environment in Quebec. Over the years, we have developed environmental law in a way that allows us to move Quebec forward responsibly and for everyone's benefit. In doing so, we have exercised all of the powers that belong to us under the division of powers set out in the Constitution of Canada. Quebec's environmental sovereignty is effective because we fully assume the space available. The Environment Quality Act is Quebec's primary environmental protection legislation. Naturally, its purpose is to protect the environment and the living species inhabiting it. Quebec law prohibits the deterioration of the quality of the environment or the emission of pollutants or contaminants. It provides recourse to residents affected by any offence that compromises the quality of the environment, its protection and the protection of living species. It requires that an environmental impact assessment be conducted to carry out an activity that could present a high risk to the environment. It creates a special access to information regime, governs projects or activities that could have an impact on wetlands and bodies of water, and provides criminal penalties for individuals who contravene the law. Reformed in 2017, Quebec's Environment Quality Act allows us to meet the highest standards in environmental protection. It is complemented by other Quebec environmental legislation, including the Sustainable Development Act, which allows the public administration in Quebec to consider the principles of sustainable development in its actions, including the principles of environmental protection, precaution, prevention and respect for ecosystem support capacity. In Quebec, we also have an act affirming the collective nature of water resources and to promote better governance of water and associated environments, which gives every individual the right to access drinking water for hygiene and cooking and ensures that there is no net loss of wetlands and bodies of water. We also have the Natural Heritage Conservation Act, which seeks to protect the land by creating protected areas, and the Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife, which seeks to protect wildlife from over-harvesting and their habitats from degradation. Finally, there is Quebec's civil code, which also contains provisions to protect the environment, in addition to other laws and regulations that also protect the environment even though that is not their only purpose. Most importantly, Quebec has its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which, since 2006, states, “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.” Clearly, when it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. I am not saying that Quebec has a perfect model. We also share responsibility and need to do much more to protect the environment. What I am trying to say is that there is already a model in Quebec, because this falls under its jurisdiction. I therefore invite members from all parts of Canada to focus their efforts on their provincial legislatures and urge their provincial counterparts to pass legislation that protects the environment. I encourage them to claim their rightful space in this domain with two goals in mind: to protect nature and to protect provincial autonomy, which is being undermined within the Canadian federation. If they want to draw on Quebec's environmental protection laws, they are welcome to. The provinces would do well to work together on the environment. That being said, under the current legal framework, the federal government does have certain environmental protection responsibilities. The Bloc Québécois intends to do everything in its power to ensure that the federal government does its job properly, and one of its jobs is to modernize the CEPA. This is a necessary legislative update, and we will give the matter the full attention it deserves. The Bloc Québécois is eager to work with all parliamentarians to ensure that the revised legislation best reflects the recommendations of health and environmental protection groups, as well as partners in the chemical industry who are most affected, particularly when it comes to chemicals management, the list of toxic substances, improved accountability for risk management, a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects of substances and mandatory labelling requirements. My colleague certainly talked about a letter sent to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change that was signed by no fewer than 54 Quebec-based groups, including women's groups, health sector groups, neighbourhood groups and more than 200 citizens from all walks of life, expressing their deep concern about toxic contamination. They are right to be concerned, since much work remains to be done on this. I have that letter with me and would like to read a few passages from it. As the letter says, these substances can be found all around us, whether it is in the air we breathe, both indoors and outdoors, in furniture and certain interior coverings, in our homes and offices, in our clothing and food and in a range of personal care products we use every day. The letter mentions bisphenol A, better known as BPA, which is found in many items. It mentions that “despite their toxicity, there are still flame retardants in some children's sleepwear”. There may be toxic substances in the footie pyjamas worn by so many babies. BPA, a well-known endocrine disrupter, “can mimic or interfere with estrogen in our bodies, producing a myriad of health effects”. There are many adverse effects. I will name a few because the list is rather startling. The effects include “altered estrogen action, early onset puberty, altered breast development and breast cancer, ovarian cysts, polycystic ovarian syndrome, uterine fibroid, altered sperm count and quality, neural and behavioural effects, sex-specific changes in brain structure, obesity and Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease, altered liver function, and more”. The letter also mentions perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. These are also very toxic substances that can be found almost anywhere and cause “cancers (testicular and kidney), hormone malfunction, thyroid disease, liver problems, immunological effects including decreased vaccine response, reproductive harms including decreased fertility, pregnancy induced hypertension and abnormal fetal development.” I apologize to the interpreters as I read this rather quickly. The letter also mentions that all these substances end up “in our waterways, our landfills and elsewhere” and obviously are found in our own human ecosystem, which has significant human health impacts. Like most of my colleagues, I have received dozens of letters from my constituents and people across Quebec asking us to change CEPA to reflect the realities of the 21st century. I agree with them that we must do this important work. In particular, they are asking that we strengthen the implementation of the right to a healthy environment. I must say that that will not be achieved by inserting the right in the bill's preamble. The changes we make to CEPA must contribute to ensuring that we have a healthy environment. If we examine the bill carefully, we see that it does not create a real right to a healthy environment. Sure, it is mentioned in the preamble, but the bill does not contain any provision that would make that right enforceable in the courts, unlike the right that has been established in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms since 2006, as I mentioned earlier. Obviously, citizens can always count on the Bloc Québécois when it comes to protecting the environment and promoting health. Good health is essential, and we often take it for granted. We fail to make the direct correlation between the environment and health, or rather between human health and environmental health. However, that is what people like Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers, a family doctor at the CIUSSS in Montreal East, are working hard to do. She is also the chair of the Association québécoise des médecins pour l'environnement and a member of the board of directors for the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. She thinks that climate change is the single biggest health threat in the 21st century and our biggest opportunity to do better. She also thinks that we need more ambitious public policies to protect our health and, obviously, I agree with her. She once said the following with regard to sustainable health, and I quote: “The best cure for the environment does not require a prescription”. Every day she sees the impact that climate change is having on the planet's health and people's health, and so she gave herself the mission of raising awareness among politicians and citizens. I was speaking about Dr. Pétrin-Desrosiers, but she is not the only one who is addressing this issue in the public sphere. The World Health Organization has also declared that climate change is the greatest threat to human health. I want to share some of the facts that the WHO has published on its website: Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health—clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter. Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between USD 2-4 billion/year by 2030. Areas with weak health infrastructure—mostly in developing countries—will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond. Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution. That is the main message from the WHO. Yes, the problem is significant and people are already feeling the effects of climate change, but by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we may be able to help mitigate those effects. I will continue to read what the WHO wrote in October 2021. It said, and I quote: Climate change is the single biggest health threat facing humanity, and health professionals worldwide are already responding to the health harms caused by this unfolding crisis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that to avert catastrophic health impacts and prevent millions of climate change-related deaths, the world must limit temperature rise to 1.5°C. We already knew that because it is something we hear often. Past emissions have already made a certain level of global temperature rise and other changes to the climate inevitable. Global heating of even 1.5°C is not considered safe, however; every additional tenth of a degree of warming will take a serious toll on people's lives and health. While no one is safe from these risks, the people whose health is being harmed first and worst by the climate crisis are the people who contribute least to its causes, and who are least able to protect themselves and their families against it — people in low-income and disadvantaged countries and communities. The climate crisis threatens to undo the last fifty years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction, and to further widen existing health inequalities between and within populations. It severely jeopardizes the realization of universal health coverage (UHC) in various ways — including by compounding the existing burden of disease and by exacerbating existing barriers to accessing health services, often at the times when they are most needed. Over 930 million people — around 12% of the world's population — spend at least 10% of their household budget to pay for health care. With the poorest people largely uninsured, health shocks and stresses already currently push around 100 million people into poverty every year, with the impacts of climate change worsening this trend. Obviously, those of us who live in a country with a public health care system are a bit more fortunate, but that is not the case for everyone around the world. I will keep reading what the WHO says: Climate change is already impacting health in a myriad of ways, including by leading to death and illness from increasingly frequent extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, storms and floods, the disruption of food systems, increases in zoonoses and food-, water- and vector-borne diseases, and mental health issues. Furthermore, climate change is undermining many of the social determinants for good health, such as livelihoods, equality and access to health care and social support structures. These climate-sensitive health risks are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, including women, children, ethnic minorities, poor communities, migrants or displaced persons, older populations, and those with underlying health conditions. ...scientific advances progressively allow us to attribute an increase in morbidity and mortality to human-induced warming, and more accurately determine the risks and scale of these health threats. In the short- to medium-term, the health impacts of climate change will be determined mainly by the vulnerability of populations, their resilience to the current rate of climate change and the extent and pace of adaptation. In the longer-term, the effects will increasingly depend on the extent to which transformational action is taken now to reduce emissions and avoid the breaching of dangerous temperature thresholds and potential irreversible tipping points. When a credible organization like the WHO publishes this kind of report, I think it is our duty as elected representatives to take it seriously and, more importantly, to act to mitigate the effects as much as possible. Of course, just modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act alone will not solve everything, but there are still some aspects that deserve our attention and need to be properly defined. We therefore need to analyze those aspects carefully to ensure that the modernized act really does allow the federal government to fulfill its responsibilities in the area of environmental protection, while ensuring respect for Quebec's environmental sovereignty. I would like to point out that the bill does include a number of elements that raise some issues of a constitutional nature. Every level of government can pass laws to protect the environment if those laws are related to an area of constitutional jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867. This is what is known as concurrent jurisdiction. Consequently, the federal Parliament can pass legislation on toxic substances given its jurisdiction over criminal matters. However, Bill S-5 is about more than regulating substances. It proposes to regulate products. It seems to me that this broadens the federal government's role. The bill proposes to allow the environment minister to require the communication of information concerning activities that could contribute to pollution. Regulating products and activities or pollution is different from regulating toxic substances. Here is another example. Usually, when prohibitions are issued under the Criminal Code, they are accompanied by sanctions for non-compliance with the law. I do not think this is the same as issuing authorizations, much less authorizations that have conditions attached. If the federal government can pass legislation under the Criminal Code, the law should not use public policy instruments that the Criminal Code does not allow to be used. My colleagues must agree that this could be a slippery slope. As members know, I am an environmentalist. Saving the planet, saving biodiversity and fighting climate change are important to me. I trust no one believes that I would be happy to forgo regulating pollution, far from it. I simply want the government to respect the division of powers and especially the work that is already being done in Quebec. In addition to respecting the principle, we also have to try to avoid costly administrative and regulatory overlap that leaves everyone confused. If the government wants to pass good legislation that is supported by the parties, it has to take steps in advance to ensure that the constitutional validity of its legislation will not be disputed. Did it consult the governments of Quebec and the provinces? I would be surprised, because the bill in its current form has quite a few constitutional problems. Those need to be addressed. Accordingly, during the study of the bill, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that there are no clauses or provisions in it that can be considered intrusions into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Of all the areas that unquestionably fall under federal jurisdiction, all my colleagues from the other parties, as well as the Minister of the Environment, know that they can count on us to ensure that we have the most robust environmental legislation possible. It is our duty to make sure of it. It is also our duty to reassure the public and give it what it is asking for: a real right to a healthy environment.

3110 words

All Topics

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

Oct/24/22 1:14:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Bloc colleague for a very well researched and thought-out speech. She mentioned a lot of the different toxic substances that are actually in our environment. Sometimes it can take decades before we really know the effects of that. I want to talk about one specific thing she brought up: the new right to a healthy environment. I am wondering how confident she is that the Liberal government will be able to achieve this. After all, for the last seven years, it has not met one environmental goal that it has put forward. It certainly is looking at a top-down approach, as she mentioned, and not respecting provincial jurisdiction. How confident is my colleague that the Liberal government, in two years, will actually be able to achieve such a worthy goal when it has not achieved anything in the last seven?

149 words

All Topics

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Oct/24/22 1:15:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for asking such a great question. Including the right to a healthy environment in the preamble of a bill is one thing. However, if the legislation itself does not reflect that idea, it is difficult to achieve. I was saying that there is a link between health and the environment. Just about everything is interconnected. We must make the necessary efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions; otherwise, we will not necessarily reduce the risk to human health. It is all interrelated. I think we have to act on several fronts at once. I am not necessarily encouraged when I see how little action this government has taken over the years. I do not think we are going to get there tomorrow morning. It requires far more complex changes, but we need to start somewhere. Modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a good thing. However, it is clear that Bill S-5 does not address all areas of environmental legislation. I think there is still a lot more to do after this bill is passed.

182 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Oct/24/22 1:16:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I really appreciated what she said about how pesticides affect people's lives and health. In the summer of 2021, the Liberal government decided to increase traces of pesticides, including glyphosate, in pulses and berries. There was outrage, and the Liberals were forced to backtrack. At the time, they promised to be more transparent. Today, we learned that an organization called Vigilance OGM received 229 blank pages from Health Canada in response to its ATIP request. What does that say about the Liberals' concern for people's health and their government's transparency?

102 words

All Topics

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Oct/24/22 1:17:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, that is another great question, and I thank the member for asking it. It speaks volumes about several things, including the fact that it might be time to review the notorious Access to Information Act. Obviously, getting entirely redacted documents or totally blank pages is not a good thing for citizens, groups or anyone who wants more information about how the government works, regardless of the subject or field. That is one thing. Second, regarding glyphosate, I remember seeing the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, along with several environmental groups, sounding the alarm about that, even though we often hear that opposition members do not serve much of a purpose. In the end, we got the government to back down. This shows that we do serve a purpose, because when we see that something is wrong, we point it out to the government so it can change course. I think it also says a lot about transparency. The government seems unwilling to be completely transparent on a number of things when it comes to the environment, food and health.

185 words

All Topics

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

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