SoVote

May/3/23 2:20:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the phenomenal work of My Voice, My Choice. The women of My Voice, My Choice have courageously sought justice through a system that we know is retraumatizing. They have continued to courageously advocate to make sure other survivors have a choice when it comes to publication bans. Currently, there is no obligation to inform or get consent from a victim-complainant when a ban has been placed on their name. If they choose to speak out about their own experiences, they can face criminal charges. This is outrageous. I stand with them today as a sexual assault survivor who chose not to go through the legal system, knowing that this system is not kind to victims. As MPs, we have a responsibility to listen to survivors and to reform these systems. My Voice, My Choice advocates have fought tirelessly, and their work has led to the introduction of Bill S-12. They are here in Ottawa with a clear message that we must amend and strengthen this bill to ensure that survivors never face criminal charges for sharing their own story and that they are always given the choice.

196 words

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

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/3/23 3:54:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present, in both official languages, two petitions, which collectively have over 5,000 signatures. The subject of these petitions is publication bans. The petitioners note that these restrictions, when unwanted, are paternalistic and prevent a victim complainant from exercising freedom of expression. They reinforce shame and the notion that anonymity always equals protection. Unwanted publication bans can give the impression that abusers are protected and benefit from the restrictions on the victim complainants, as they prevent open communication about the offence and harm experienced. The petitioners are calling on the government to allow victim complainants to attribute their own experience of sexual offences without being charged; to grant adult victim complainants of sexual offences a choice in the application of publication bans; to produce comprehensive, accessible, multilingual and public information on these bans on government websites; to simplify the process to lift a ban without the services of a lawyer; and to allow victim complainants to opt out of these bans on their victim impact statement forms.

173 words

All Topics

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

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/3/23 4:10:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in Parliament to represent the people of Victoria. People in my community care deeply about the environment. Protecting coastal ecosystems, being able to enjoy clean lakes and clean rivers and to breathe clean air are things that people in Victoria, and across our country, care deeply about. They are things we cannot take for granted. It is why enshrining the right to a healthy environment in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is so important. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the largest piece of legislation that governs environmental protection in Canada, and it has been over 20 years since the last time it was updated. The world has changed and toxic substances are different than they were two decade ago. The bill was an opportunity to address environmental justice and to better protect the most marginalized who are impacted by pollution. This was such an important opportunity to strengthen environmental protections, and there are some great pieces of this legislation, but there were also so many missed opportunities. While Bill S-5 does not address a number of critical aspects of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that need to be updated, I am going to start by outlining what we accomplished in committee, what was accomplished in the Senate and why it is important to pass this bill. The right to a healthy environment would be recognized for the first time under federal law. We were able to strengthen the legislation in committee to ensure that there would be a duty for the government to uphold the principles of environmental justice, intergenerational equity and non-regression. The bill would also require the federal government to take the cumulative impacts of toxins and their effects on vulnerable populations into account. I want to thank Senator McCallum for her work in providing amendments for vulnerable populations. The bill would also update how we control toxic substances and dangerous chemicals. It would prioritize prohibiting the most hazardous substances, and New Democrats worked to improve transparency and accountability. The bill would not be as strong without the amendments that we fought for and passed at the environment committee, or without the work of senators like Mary Jane McCallum and others, who strengthened the bill in the Senate. Unfortunately, there were so many important amendments that the government and the Conservatives voted against. They went so far as to take out provisions in the bill so as to water down environmental protections, undermine provisions for public consultation and protection of indigenous rights, and deny Parliament the opportunity to deal with the grave concerns around enforcement. They voted against amendments on the right to a healthy environment for future generations, including voting against implementing enforceable air quality standards, stronger labelling requirements for consumer products, and requirements for public and indigenous consultations regarding genetically engineered organisms, among others. It was disappointing that the Liberals and the Conservatives teamed up to undermine environmental protections, but it was not surprising to see them, yet again, listening to corporate lobbyists instead of scientists, doctors and environmental experts. One example of this was when the Liberals and Conservatives joined together to remove the reference to tailings ponds in the bill. This egregious amendment came from the Conservative members, who argued that tailings ponds are being managed very well. This is blatantly ignoring the science, the reports and the testimony from indigenous communities about the impact of pollution from tailings ponds. What was shocking is that the Liberals, who say they care about the environment, voted with the Conservatives to remove this vital provision. Pollution from tailings ponds is having devastating effects on communities, and the Liberal members on committee decided they would take out the only reference to tailings ponds in this legislation. Not even a month after this amendment passed, it was widely reported that the oil and gas giant Imperial Oil had a massive tailings pond leak that affected many indigenous communities near the site, including the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. What makes this case particularly horrific is that it has been happening since May 2022 and that the indigenous nations that were impacted were only informed almost a year later, in February 2023. This was after 5.3 million litres of toxic waste seeped into the ground and watershed that these communities rely on. That is two Olympic-sized swimming pools of toxic waste. Members from these communities came to speak about the failures of this federal government: the failure to protect the environment and the failure to protect the indigenous communities that were impacted. We must do more. We need to address this failure and properly regulate tailings ponds. This is why I put forward a report stage amendment to put the words “tailings ponds” back into the bill. I urge my colleagues in the chamber to vote in support of this amendment. Another area where the bill fails is on air quality. In fact, Bill S-5 does not mention air quality. Air pollution is the single greatest environmental risk to human health. Health Canada estimates that air pollution kills more than 15,000 people each year in Canada, and it is responsible for over $120 billion in socio-economic costs to the Canadian economy. Exposure to air pollution increases the risk of stroke, heart attack and lung cancer, as well as chronic and acute respiratory illnesses, such as asthma. There are also links to neurological diseases and adverse birth effects. The U.S. has had enforceable air quality standards for over 50 years. However, Canada has decided to continue to rely on voluntary standards. David Boyd, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, said that legally binding and enforceable ambient air quality standards are not just a matter of protecting the environment and public health, but that they are also important in creating a more equal Canada. Air pollution affects everyone, causing widespread violations of the right to breathe clean air, yet the burden of related diseases has a disproportional impact on certain vulnerable populations. Among the most severely harmed are women, children, the elderly, minorities, indigenous people, people living in poverty, people with pre-existing health conditions such as respiratory conditions or heart disease, and people who fall into several of these categories. Major sources of ambient air pollution, including power plants, refineries, factories, incinerators and busy roads, are often located in poor and racialized communities. Therefore, implementing ambient air quality standards in law and enforcing those standards across Canada is a matter of environmental justice. Parliament should strengthen Bill S-5 to ensure that Canada's first law recognizing the right to a healthy environment does not overlook action on air pollution. People's lives depend on it. When given the chance to make the Canadian Environmental Protection Act the strongest piece of environmental protection possible, the Liberals and Conservatives listened to the interests of big corporations over those of scientists and environmental experts. I also want to mention the amendments put forward by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. When it comes to protection of nature and when it comes to addressing genetically modified organisms, we need to ensure not only that we are listening to science, but also that we are listening to indigenous communities that are impacted when the Canadian government pushes through approvals for genetically modified salmon and other organisms that are central to the culture and livelihood of indigenous communities. There is a lot more to be said, but I will conclude by saying that my NDP colleagues and I are going to keep fighting to ensure that we protect our environment, that we protect human health and that we protect everything that we hold most dear for ourselves, for our children and for future generations. I am proud of the work that has been done, and I will be voting for this bill, but I hope that we do not wait another two decades to make these changes.

1336 words

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

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/3/23 4:10:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

moved: That the amendment to Clause 9 of Bill S-5 be deleted.

13 words

All Topics

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

Ms. Laurel Collins

May/3/23 4:21:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his work on committee, but I have to say that I am extremely disappointed by the question. I was extremely disappointed to see Liberal members vote alongside the Conservatives to take out the only reference to tailings ponds in this entire piece of legislation. This is an issue that is impacting indigenous communities right now, and the fact that the government has decided that it does not want the words “tailings ponds” in CEPA is egregious, in my opinion. Honestly, I hope that the members in the House are listening. I hope that they will take the time to listen to indigenous communities who are impacted by the toxic pollution from tailings ponds and that they will reverse this decision and vote in favour of the report stage amendment to put the words “tailings ponds” back into CEPA.

152 words

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

Ms. Laurel Collins

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her diligent work in committee in attempting to strengthen this piece of legislation. The answer is no. If the government were serious about actually amending the pieces, especially section 22 on enforcement of the right to a healthy environment, it would have done it this time. This is a critical piece, which it did not allow us to open up. I do not think it would do to argue for any other well-known bill that the government will be putting it forward now, but we should not worry because another bill will be put forward in a few months or years. We know that it took 24 years for this iteration, this update. It has been years and years of advocacy to get to this point where we can modernize CEPA. It stretches the imagination to think that it is going to table a comprehensive “CEPA 2” bill in this Parliament. I do not believe it, but I think it is critical that we start pushing the government to do this work.

184 words

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

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/3/23 4:39:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the amendments the member put forward at report stage, in particular, the work of Nature Canada and the criticisms to the language of interested parties when it comes to public consultation, how important it is that we have public consultation, and how problematic that particular language is.

55 words

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

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/3/23 5:20:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her work on committee. The member put forward many amendments that were similar to New Democrat amendments. Whether it was on pollution prevention planning, timelines or genetically modified organisms, I am grateful for the work that she diligently tried to push forward in committee. We were able to strengthen some aspects of this legislation, but there are still so many gaps, and I want to ask about one of those gaps, on air quality standards. We know that the U.S. has had enforceable air quality standards for over 50 years and that over 15,000 lives are lost in Canada every year from air pollution. That is 15,000 people and families. Can the member speak to how this is a matter of life and death? These provisions are important and the government needs to do better.

147 words