SoVote

May/3/23 4:37:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I truly share the frustration of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. When our party was not recognized, we could not move our amendments in committee either. Instead of asking a question, I would like to make a statement. I must commend the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for the excellent work that she has done and was able to deliver to the Standing Committee on the Environment. I also want to acknowledge the work of Nature Canada, an environmental protection association that is almost always one step ahead of us. Nature Canada put forward these amendments that we are discussing today, and the members for Victoria and Saanich—Gulf Islands are speaking on their behalf. I want to thank them. We, as members of Parliament, are generalists and we need these experts, these specialists, to inform our thinking and give us a better understanding of the issues.

158 words

Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/3/23

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/3/23 4:54:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to be brief when talking about an issue like this. We had a wonderful opportunity to demand action on air pollution and the labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products. In his speech, my colleague referred to the European Union. Let us look at the example of GMO labelling. The European Union is light years ahead of Canada. Even the United States is beginning to require and tighten regulations. Why did we not take advantage of the opportunity presented by Bill S‑5 to help Canada catch up with the other countries that are really far ahead of us?

105 words

Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/3/23

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/3/23 5:07:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech, and I would mention that we are fellow members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. At the end of his speech, he talked about Canada's standing in the world on environmental protection. I have a question for him. When we voted on the amendments during our study of Bill S‑5, the Conservative Party always voted with the Liberals. Does the member not think he could have voted in favour of the amendments that we developed with the help of experts and scientists specifically to improve Canada's performance?

108 words

Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/3/23

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/3/23 5:11:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am pleased I can finally say that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is going to be revised and modernized. It would be an understatement to say that it is about time. For more than 20 years—nearly 25 years, actually—successive federal governments have not given this law the attention it needs. Canada has been doing nothing while, elsewhere in the world, environmental regulations have been implemented everywhere. We are at the report stage of Bill S-5. The door to change has opened just a crack, and we are going to have to get our foot in that door before it closes, I am afraid. The bill first made its way through the Senate. It arrived at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development just before Christmas. Throughout 2022, I had a huge number of meetings to better understand the expectations and needs expressed by expert associations from various technical, scientific and legal fields as well as environmental protection organizations. Not long after the 2021 elections, the Minister of Environment acknowledged that the bill to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would be the first of many. Indeed, the scope of this piece of legislation is so vast that a formal review would have been impossible without a multi-step process. The study of Bill S‑5 also confirmed the need to avoid delay in tabling the next part of the modernization, which I eagerly look forward to. In the time I have to speak at report stage, it would be impossible to cover everything that deserves a mention. When everything seems important, choices can be difficult. Hopefully, I will get an opportunity to discuss other aspects at third reading. To get right down to business, I wish to talk about the right to a healthy environment. The scope of application of the clauses on the right to a healthy environment does not extend beyond the boundaries of the act itself. They have no impact on other Canadian statutes. If protecting this right is added on to the federal government’s mission, the amendments will not necessarily create a genuine, fundamental right to live in a healthy environment, which would have been a good thing. This was confirmed unequivocally by senior officials appearing before the Senate committee and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This right will have to be balanced by what is defined in the legislation as reasonable limits and socio-economic factors. We will have to wait for the implementation framework. When I say the door is only open a crack, that is an example. No one is against virtue, but we have to tell it like it is. This is a step forward—although a cautious and very strictly regulated one—that will not necessarily give citizens more rights to go before the courts and ask for sanctions for projects or situations that harm the environment. I want to commend my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the rigorous amendments that she introduced in committee but that unfortunately were rejected. Another point I wanted to make is that there has been no progress at all on pollution prevention plans, or PPPs. PPPs should be considered as a centerpiece of the environmental legal framework, a pillar even. A few years before the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, received royal assent, the environment committee of the time said, and I quote, “the Committee believes that pollution prevention should be the priority approach to environmental protection. In addition, the Committee firmly believes that CEPA should provide a key legislative base for promoting pollution prevention in Canada. ...a major shift in emphasis is required in the legislation, from managing pollution after it has been created to preventing pollution in the first place. We believe that pollution prevention will avoid, eliminate and reduce more pollution than ‘react and cure’ strategies”. This excerpt dates back to 1995. Requiring planning for the prevention of pollution was important 25 years ago, and so just imagine what it should be today. I am saying today, because the opportunity to address the inertia of the past two decades with respect to pollution control standards based on prevention and leading to strict management of risks and dangers was within reach. Members know that I have an interest in human health and its links to the environment. In medicine, it is often said, and quite rightly, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That can also be said about environmental pollution. Prevention, whether of illness or pollution, has to be planned. The Canadian Environmental Law Association made this a key recommendation, one that was supported by several organizations and experts in environmental law. These experts were invited to testify at both the Senate and House of Commons committees. The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources was able to craft an amendment that rallied all its members. When Bill S-5 was sent to the lower chamber, the majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development wanted to set it aside, to discard it. They voted against it. Focusing the content of Bill S‑5 on principles to manage pollution and not prevent it is to give in to the wishes of the industry to continue heading in a less restrictive direction. A minute ago I was saying that addressing the inertia was within reach. That is true, because the science and knowledge about the environment and the effects of toxic substances on the environment and on our health have grown over the past 25 years. Experts who have studied and analyzed the regulatory system, from both a technical and legal perspective, have submitted recommendations and testified in the Senate and in committee. We were not short on resources. We had resources that could help us learn about what is happening elsewhere, to fully grasp what could truly structure progress and to offer hope that this review would be fruitful. The industry's input prevailed when it came time to talk about the regulatory framework on toxic substances. More broadly, the industry wanted to see a legislative measure that was not overly burdensome. Some might say that is obvious. That being said, I do not deny that listening to industry is essential for a host of good reasons. However, when the dominant narrative from the industry is inflexible and the industry seems to be wiping its feet on environmental considerations and human health just to maintain the status quo, I start to get annoyed—and I think that is an understatement. We know that between 2006 and 2020, there was an impressive reduction in the quantity of toxic substances that were released into the air, a decline of 60%. That said, every rose has its thorn. We also know that during the same period, land-based toxic releases, both intentional and accidental, jumped by more than 50%. They are turning their backs on analyses and facts. Like it or not, the government has severely undermined the excellent amendments put forward by the Senate, Green Party, NDP and Bloc Québécois that relate to the consultation and public participation processes. They are turning their backs on transparency. High-level experts pointed us in the direction of essential regulatory updates, yet the Liberal-Conservative coalition chose to support industry. They are turning their backs on balance. Of course, the Bloc Québécois understands that environmental policy requires trade-offs between health and environmental protection objectives on one hand and commercial and industrial interests on the other. We understand that. At least the door is open. To move forward with regulation, we need to be able to recognize the weaknesses and pitfalls that characterize this regime in Canada. There is some work that has been done in that regard. The legislator needs to remember its responsibilities toward Canadians and the environment. It must not become complacent because that will serve only to promote the financial health of trade and industry, rather than protect the health of millions of people and the health of the environment. I would like to be able to say that we have taken a small step for man and a large step for mankind, but instead, I have to say that we have taken a small step for health and environmental protection but that we look forward to making greater strides.

1435 words

Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/3/23

Ms. Monique Pauzé

May/3/23 5:21:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria, with whom I serve in committee, for her question. I think that the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were all united in trying to make the legislation a lot more binding and in trying to improve it. We are talking about the health of millions of people, human beings, and about the health of the environment. They are interconnected. Thousands of people die every year. It is not something that anybody really seems to think about, but I believe, if memory serves, that 6% of the GDP, billions of dollars, go toward helping those who become ill as a result of air pollution. Bill S‑5 was a good opportunity to improve that. I think we missed that opportunity.

135 words

Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/3/23

Ms. Monique Pauzé

May/3/23 5:23:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois is quite sensitive about jurisdictions and respect for jurisdictions. The environment is a shared jurisdiction, to some extent. When the Constitution was being written in 1867, no one was talking about the environment. Now when it comes to the environment, we have to strike a balance between what the federal government can do in terms of regulations and what Quebec and the provinces can do. It is a delicate balance. I tried to introduce amendments to bring in the idea of respect for Quebec and provincial jurisdictions, but to no avail. I eventually gave up on the idea of getting such an amendment passed.

116 words

Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/3/23

Ms. Monique Pauzé

May/3/23 5:25:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, yes, there is a lack of transparency there. The Liberal-Conservative coalition voted against every amendment that increased transparency. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is absolutely right.

31 words