44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 15, 2023 11:00AM
- May/15/23 1:49:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am really confused as to what my colleague wants here. He talks about how important it is to have a clean and healthy environment, as well as how Canadians expect and want that. However, he says we need fewer regulations for that clean environment. How do the Conservatives expect us to maintain a clean and healthy environment without regulations in some form that will keep companies like Imperial Oil in check when they spill toxins into rivers? How are we supposed to do that without regulations to make sure that our children and our children's children will have a clean and healthy environment here in Canada?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 4:48:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned at the very end the things we need to fix about this bill that were considered out of scope, and I assume that is why they were not fixed in this iteration of the bill. However, Bill S-5 was introduced as a different bill in a previous Parliament. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has never been enforceable. People knew that. One would think this would have been the first thing to be tackled by the government when it was fixing this bill after 24 years.
I am just wondering why that did not occur to the government and why we now have to have another piece of legislation. I agree with him that we need it done as quickly as possible to make this bill enforceable. What is the point of having environmental protection if it is not enforceable?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:03:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, we just had a question about some of the amendments that were not considered. Some of the amendments that people wanted to put forward were considered out of scope. We even heard one of the Liberal speakers today say that he hoped we would go back to this bill as soon as possible, as soon as we passed it, and create another bill that would fix the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
After 24 years, the government did not include these important provisions in this new bill. They include things like the enforceability of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, something obvious that should have been done. Can the member comment on why these things were not included in Bill S-5?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:21:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I just want to bring up the business of enforcement, which the member talked about at the end of her speech.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is widely held as unenforceable. It has not ever been enforced in any reasonable way by the public. Bill S-5 would not change that. Ontario has had an environmental bill of rights for many years now, with an enforcement mechanism. Again, under that bill, it has not had anybody complaining about backyard bonfires.
I am wondering if the member could comment on the fact that this is really not going to happen, but that we really need this. If we have an environmental bill of rights, we have to have some way to enforce it.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Canadians care about the health of their environment. According to polling, 92% of Canadians believe the government should recognize the right to live in a healthy environment. Canada has several major pieces of legislation on environmental protection, but the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the centrepiece of that commitment.
Bill S-5, which we are debating here today, is the long-awaited update to that act. It has been 24 years since the last update, and there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. Some of that water likely contained some of the many new toxins we have invented in the last two decades, and that is one thing that needed to be updated with this bill. We have also learned a great deal about the cumulative effects of even tiny doses of these toxins. We literally have to run to keep up with the ways we are damaging the environment here in Canada and around the world.
People concerned about the environment welcomed the effort to update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, as it known for short, and the NDP welcomed that too. It is long overdue.
I want to spend a bit of time talking about the history of this particular bill, as I think it puts some of the efforts to fix CEPA in a better context.
The bill was first introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-28, tabled in April 2021, two years ago. However, the government did not bring it to the floor of the House for debate that spring and then called an election in the summer, so that ended that version of the bill.
Environmental law experts across the country analyzed that bill and began to drop ideas to make it better when it came back to Parliament. There was some hope that the government would take some of those ideas and amend the new version before reintroducing it so that things would not be considered out of scope. Instead, it tabled the exact same version of the bill, the same as Bill C-28, in the Senate in February 2022, where it took on its life as Bill S-5, the bill we are debating today. The Senate took a long, serious look at the bill in committee, improved it in several ways and sent it to the House at the end of June last year, and the House took it up last fall. It has since been through second reading debate and committee, and we see it here at report stage.
This bill, at its heart, is about allowing Canadians to live in a clean, healthy environment. Much of its detail is in regulations around toxic chemicals, chemicals we have invented and continue to invent and chemicals released into the environment, whether knowingly or not, that can directly affect our health and degrade the ecosystems we all depend on.
One new and very important part of this bill is the long-overdue inclusion of language that declares that Canadians have the right to live in a healthy environment. Last year, on July 28, 2022, the UN General Assembly passed a unanimous resolution that recognized the right to a healthy environment around the world. A hundred and fifty-nine countries around the world have legal obligations to protect the human right to a healthy environment, but Canada does not.
There are environmental bills of rights in Ontario, Quebec, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but there is no federal law that explicitly recognizes the right to a healthy environment in Canada. Bill S-5 could change that, so it is a positive step forward, but it is important to back up declarations of rights with legislation that enforces those rights. Unfortunately, the previous version of CEPA was considered unenforceable, and this one is no better.
The Senate committee studying Bill S-5 sent the bill to the House with the following message:
This committee would like to state their concern that the right to a healthy environment cannot be protected unless it is made truly enforceable. This enforceability would come by removing the barriers that exist to the current remedy authority within Section 22 of CEPA, entitled “Environmental Protection Action.” There is concern that Section 22 of CEPA contains too many procedural barriers and technical requirements that must be met to be of practical use. As Bill S-5 does not propose the removal or re-evaluation of these barriers, this Committee is concerned that the right to a healthy environment may remain unenforceable.
The reason the Senate did not fix this enforceability issue with amendments is that apparently it would have been considered out of scope, so I would say the government should table separate legislation as soon as possible to remedy this. Again, the government could have missed all of this if it had fixed this problem with CEPA and Bill S-5 before tabling the new version of the bill.
Similarly, there were other major shortcomings in Bill S-5 that were out of scope for amendments, including a lack of legally binding and enforceable air quality standards. It is really quite surprising that the first draft of Bill S-5 made no attempts to address air quality at all. It also lacks a more open, inclusive and transparent risk assessment process for the evaluation of genetically engineered animals in the environment, especially wild salmon. Salmon are a critical part of our aquatic ecosystems and are sacred to first nations that have relied on healthy salmon populations for millennia. The risk of introducing genetically engineered salmon into the wild environment should set off alarm bells on all sorts of fronts.
I would like to mention here that I have a private member's bill, Bill C-219, the Canadian environmental bill of rights, that would extend the right to a clean environment across the federal mandate, not just for toxins and other aspects covered under CEPA, but for all aspects of the environment covered by federal legislation. The heart of Bill C-219 is a transparent accountability process that would allow Canadians to ensure their government is actually upholding the right to a clean environment. That accountability process is missing from Bill S-5 and CEPA. It could have and should have been included. I am hoping that the government and all parties will support my bill and use that part of it as a model to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
In conclusion, I would like to make it clear that the NDP will be voting in favour of Bill S-5 at this stage. We are happy that the right to live in a clean and healthy environment has finally been recognized within federal legislation, and we are happy the bill confirms the government's commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples under the act. However, the bill has many shortcomings, only some of which I have listed above.
I was heartened to hear the speech from the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, in which he admitted these shortcomings and called for a new bill amending CEPA to fix them as soon as possible. Why they were not included in the bill before us, which has been 24 years in the making, is beyond my comprehension, but I would certainly welcome such a bill.
Most Canadians will be happy to see the bill pass, and I know that most parties will be voting for the bill, albeit some reluctantly. I hope the Senate will deal with it promptly so we can enjoy its benefits and quickly start the process of crafting a new bill that will once again make CEPA a stronger act, an act that will truly protect Canadians and ensure that we and our grandchildren can live in the clean and healthy environment that is our right.
1329 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:46:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I agree that we have seen a gradual improvement in the way we treat animals broadly, especially within the research context, and I am happy to see that included in the bill. The bill has a lot of good things in it. That is why I think it is important that we support it. It just has many shortcomings that make me feel disappointed about it in other ways.
I hope we will see a new bill, a fresh bill, on CEPA shortly, but I agree that it is a good step forward.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:48:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, indeed, one of the major problems with Bill S-5 is that the enforceability of the right to live in a clean and healthy environment is left up to the minister. It is not up to the residents of Canada, who should be able to bring forward concerns to the minister and then follow a transparent and timely path so we can make sure this right is upheld in a proper manner. It should not be left entirely up to the minister, as it is now.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:49:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member. This bill is one of the steps in the right direction. It is something we feel we should support because we want to make a step in the right direction. We just wish there were several steps or bigger steps. At least with the right to a clean and healthy environment, for instance, we now have that enshrined within legislation. However, we do not have a good method of enforcing it. That is one thing we should do next, one of several things I outlined.
A lot of these issues could have been fixed if the government had listened to what people were saying, after Bill C-28 was introduced, about ways to fix it. It should have made Bill S-5 a much better bill from the start.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, again, we had 22 years before Bill C-28 to fix this. We have had two years since then. This should have been a much better bill. We now have the right to live in a clean and healthy environment within the scope of CEPA, not within the scope of the rest of the federal mandate, so it is a tiny step. We should be doing better. We could have done so much better if the government had done so.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:52:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for a recorded vote, please.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 7:04:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this adjournment debate arises from a question I asked the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry on May 1.
On that day, as I was asking the question, on the lawn of Parliament Hill, there was a crowd of young researchers from Ottawa universities demanding to be heard by the government. They were part of a cross-country demonstration that day that involved nearly 10,000 graduate students, post-docs, faculty and supporters. They had walked out of 46 institutions across Canada.
Their question for the government was simply this: Why are grad students are getting paid the same amount today as they were being paid 20 years ago? Their wages, which come in the form of federal scholarships and fellowships, cover the full-time work they perform doing their research, and that work is the backbone of our university research in Canada.
These are scholarships, so these are not average students, but our best and brightest, yet the federal government pays them below minimum wage. They are forced to live below the poverty line. Master scholarships have been pegged at $17,500 per year for 20 years. Ph.D. students get a bit more at $21,000. Therefore, my question for the minister is this: Why have these scholarship amounts not changed since 2003?
Last week, at the Standing Committee on Science and Research, we were studying the same question. One of the witnesses was Sarah Laframboise, a Ph.D. student from the University of Ottawa, who had organized the May 1 walkout. She had appeared before our committee exactly one year ago on the same subject. This time, and I am quoting from the blues, she stated, “It is frustrating, however, that in the last year since my appearance there has been no action by our government to solve these problems. During this time, we have 7,000 scientists and 40 scientific associations sign an open letter. We had 3,500 signatures on a petition...delivered to the House of Commons. We rallied on Parliament Hill in August. We spoke to MPs, ministers, media and the public about our cause, and sent over 2,000 emails to our MPs. But this wasn't enough. Budget 2023 contained no new funding for graduate students and post-docs.”
Also testifying was Dr. Maydianne Andrade, a professor of biology at the University of Toronto. She said, and I am again quoting from the blues, “Our current system is a massive filter. It is a filter that is filtering out people as a function of their finances, not as a function of their excellence, not as a function of the likelihood that they might be the next Canadian Nobel prize [winner].
“We are filtering out people who can't take the mental load of living in poverty, those who don't have credit ratings that allow them to take out loans, those who are unable to manage incredibly challenging research agendas while holding down several jobs.
“We are filtering out mature students who have dependents, and we're filtering out anyone whose family can't help support them through this without massive debt.”
The science and research committee recommended last year that these scholarship amounts be increased. We have the advisory panel report on the federal research support system, headed by Dr. Frédéric Bouchard, and commissioned by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry himself, recommending that these scholarship and fellowship amounts be increased and indexed to inflation. I spoke with Dr. Bouchard recently, and he was mystified as to why these recommendations had not been followed.
Therefore, I will repeat my question: When will this be fixed? When will we start paying our young researchers a living wage so they will stay in Canada, where we need them to be, instead of leaving for any number of countries that would happily pay them twice as much as they receive here?
661 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 7:12:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sure the government thinks it is doing the right thing for science and research, and it has made some investments in that regard over the past five years or so, but it is clearly missing an obvious investment here, an investment that would be relatively small in comparison to some of the other programs it has initiated, an investment that would have a huge payback, and that is to invest in our young researchers and graduate students. They have literally been forgotten for 20 years. That is the only way I can explain this.
Many of these students are moving to other countries or dropping out of their studies altogether. We need them to keep working here to make sure our country is the innovation powerhouse it should be. We know what needs to be done. We need to pay them a fair wage. We know what needs to be done, so let us do it.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
