44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 31, 2022 11:00AM
- Oct/31/22 12:12:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I appreciate hearing my colleague speak today about some very important points to his constituents, particularly wishing Hayden the best.
This bill would take up what was a temporary trial experiment in regard to chemical management, put forward by the Hon. Rona Ambrose under Mr. Harper. There were a number of amendments made by the Senate without having any practical knowledge of it.
Does the member think the system that was developed has stood the test of time? Does he believe those changes require proper study before amending the bill?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 12:58:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from British Columbia for raising this. It almost seems like the government believes that if all parties agree, there is no process or no point in having members of Parliament go through the legislation. This is complex legislation; it touches upon criminal law, and there are going to be different parts of the country that are going to be affected differently.
Does the member believe the parliamentary secretary seems to be one-sided, so that only one person, either him or the Prime Minister, should be in charge of everything, or does he believe we have a Parliament for a reason, which is to raise issues and to debate different aspects of the legislation?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 1:43:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is always a good day to join my colleagues in the House of Commons for an important debate on Bill S-5, which was known in the last Parliament as Bill C-28. In the last Parliament, I served as opposition critic for the environment and had the chance to work with many members in the chamber who are quite concerned about the environment.
Since the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, was first put in place in 1999, we have not seen a redo or significant amendment to it. As we all know, life is becoming increasingly more complex. What I do realize is that there are voices on both sides of the House of Commons who care deeply about the environment. Some may have concerns about its impact on industry. We have also those who have concerns about how it impacts everyday Canadians. That is particularly important for when we have these debates.
The parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg has jumped onto his feet so many times today, accusing the opposition, and in this case the Conservatives, although we just heard from a Bloc Québécois member as well as from an NDP member, of essentially filibustering. Another member from Manitoba also just did that. Let us just put that to rest right now in my comments.
Let us be mindful that CEPA actually has Criminal Code implications. When someone is charged under CEPA legislation, ultimately the mechanism is through the courts through the Criminal Code. It is extremely important for us to understand, especially considering as life has become more complicated and as different levels of government are trying to see a more environmentally friendly place for their citizens, that there are going to be more complex trade-offs.
I am a former parliamentary secretary, and I know there are two types of parliamentary secretaries. There are those who burn shoe leather trying to build consensus in the House of Commons for their government's legislation or those who burn the shoe leather of their ministers by shining their shoes. Any parliamentary secretary who is trying to say that having debate in this chamber equates to filibustering is just wrong.
I am going to get on to the actual legislation, but I think I made the point that when we have this once-in-a-legislative-lifetime ability to have conversations about critical legislation that has Criminal Code impacts, it should be taken on, and we should be celebrating those members who feel strongly about these issues.
I would like to talk a bit about some of the concerns I have.
First, I take some issue with the government's approach when it comes to the regulation of plastics. It is no surprise that in the last Parliament we went through this at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development at length. What we found was essentially that the industry and the province, by the way, Alberta, was most affected by the changes to plastic regulation. What we have is the government trying to pivot desperately from a bad decision. That bad decision was to list manufactured plastic as a toxic substance under schedule 1. We were coming out of the pandemic.
We all know the same molecules that are used in a medical application are the same plastic molecules in a plastic straw. They are the same molecules that are used in a part for an electric vehicle, as electric vehicles are being made out of plastic more and more because it is strong and also lighter.
For the government, this created quite a conundrum, because the industry obviously resented the fact. Actually, some industry players have taken the government to court over this, and I believe the Government of Alberta has done the same. To solve this, the government has now created two schedules: the highest risk and the lowest risk. Again, it has not actually fixed the problem, which is putting in manufactured plastics that are used in our everyday lives. I could not be speaking to the House of Commons today without the use of some plastics in the computer I use or the mouse I use. Many of the members would not be able to get there without the transportation for which those plastics allow.
This is an area the government has complete hypocrisy and really should be held to account. It is not necessarily removing industry concerns when it comes to the new schedule, because they are still labelled as toxic. This will create a problem for the government as it tries to say plastic straws are bad and banned, but electric vehicles are good and it wants to see more investment in them. The government will have to deal with this issue at some point.
When it comes to the chemical management plan, this plan was first adopted by the Harper government when the Hon. Rona Ambrose was the environment minister. I am going to start with the good, and then I am going to get to the bad and the ugly.
The good is that the government has seen the wisdom in it and has decided to take the chemical management plan, which will allow for hazardous chemicals that have been shown conclusively can be risk managed, which means that there are plants in place and these companies are very good at it, to be utilized to make important substances we use in our everyday lives and in their chemical processes. This is important in an industrial economy. Yes, we still have an industrial economy. The Liberal government and the NDP's costly coalition has not done away with that just yet. That is an important part of it, so I am glad to see it maintained.
However, the Senate has created a number of changes to the legislation that could cause some considerable consternation, because oftentimes as legislators we will hear from different groups and try to placate some groups in how it is used by creating uncertain language.
For example, amendment 9 and 15 by the Senate would replace the schedule 1 substances that pose the ”highest risk” language, in reference to schedule 1 part 1, with more prescriptive language. We would prefer the “highest risk” language, because it includes the term “risk”. As I said, this is a risk management process, and the removal of the words “highest risk” would make the provision's enforcement unclear. This could lead to all sorts of litigation down the road. As I said, if someone violates CEPA, it would not be just a simple slap on the wrist or issuing a fine to industry that gets passed on to consumers; it would be serious business. We need to be very careful about this.
I would like to focus on something, because a lot has been said. The NDP has been really trying to balance its rhetoric during election cycles and to its constituents with what the Liberals have put forward with the so-called “right to a healthy environment”. Essentially, the New Democrats say they are going to take the legislation to committee and make it better, because they want to ensure it is a right.
I had the opportunity in the last Parliament to have an official from Environment and Climate Change Canada come and discuss specifically another piece of legislation. I asked about Bill C-28, and I said this, on April 14, 2021, at the environment committee's 25th meeting:
I'll be as quick as I can.
When people think of rights, they think of the charter, for example, that the government cannot do this to you, those kinds of civil rights, etc. There are multiple ones, yet the right to a healthy environment, what does that mean, and are they at the same level?
Ms. Laura Farquharson said, “Bill C-28 recognizes a right to a healthy environment under CEPA, and it's set out that there will be an implementation framework to delineate how that lens will be used in the administration of the act.”
My response was, “Will the right to a healthy environment under CEPA only solely apply to the regulatory enforcement of CEPA?”
She replied, “It not only applies to regulatory enforcement; it would apply also to how policies are developed under that act, but the point is, it only applies to that act.”
I replied, “It's a limited right, or not even technically that.”
She replied, “Right.”
Again, the NDP has basically sided with the government. Its members will say they are looking for further amendments, but it is clear this is just a factor, not a right, to be taken when a bureaucrat is looking through a lens of social economic responses, either for a policy or enforcement under CEPA alone. This is not a clear cut right, like we would see in the Charter of Rights or the Bill of Rights.
Those are a few of my concerns. I hope I have brought a few concerns to the floor that others have not. I also hope that the parliamentary secretaries can understand we are here to talk about CEPA, because this is the once-in-a-generation opportunity, as parliamentarians, for us to be able to discuss this important legislation.
1570 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 1:55:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I have many questions and comments about the member, but I will start with this. First, I am not sensitive to the member; I am just tired of him.
Second, I have been on the committee and understand how this works. There is a very small number of MPs on committee and the rest of us in this chamber, who are not on the environment committee, will not be able to raise those questions. I would like to talk about the governance changes that the government has put in the bill, where the Food and Drug Administration component of CEPA will be given strictly to Health Canada. I have some issues about the impact of endocrine disruptors on the environment and I do not know necessarily that it is a good move, but I will not be at that committee.
It is patently unfair for the member to be saying we should just move on. That is a bad-faith discussion on his behalf.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 1:56:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, as I said, it is important to me that the process be enriched by discussions in the House. I think that is also important to members from across the country, especially those from Quebec.
As I said, the Senate put forward many amendments.
We will have to discuss whether those amendments are good for the bill. I do not think they all are, but I would like to hear from other members. I respect what they have to say in this chamber, not just necessarily the voices at committee.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 1:58:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, we know that member is feeling the heat from the new Conservative leader, who has been putting out a message, particularly if we look at how the last election went in his neck of the woods. People are starting to abandon the New Democrats because they do not champion the regular working person and, instead, champion certain issues without necessarily having any balance whatsoever.
When I raised the concern that the so-called right to a healthy environment was just one factor that a bureaucrat would bring up in a regulatory policy, that is not really a right. If the member is pretending to his constituents that it is somehow more substantive than that, then he is kidding himself, and he is kidding himself that his leader is resonating in places like northern Ontario. Being focused on the wrong issues will be a problem the NDP will have in British Columbia in the next election.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 6:35:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I remember being a city councillor in Penticton, where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans told the Penticton planning department that there was a fish habitat area in a chunk of land where we wanted to put in some stairs and it was prohibited. It turned out it was just a golf course's water hazard. There are issues when Ottawa says something falls under a particular definition that is not conducive or recognizable by the locals.
Amendment 19 introduces a new term, “vulnerable environment”, in reference to products that contain a substance or release a substance into the environment. If I were a farmer and someone in Ottawa started talking about vulnerable environments, especially at a time when farmers are having to put resources into new capital, new techniques and different types of new harvesting methods, to suddenly have these uncertain terms being injected into it would concern me. Does it raise the concerns of the member and does he think it raises the concerns of his constituents?
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
