44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 15, 2023 11:00AM
- May/15/23 12:29:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I will note that the member opposite's party is expected to support this bill. That is an indication of how important this is to all constituents across the country. Canadians, regardless of the party and the member of Parliament who represent them in their riding, want stronger protections for the environment. That is what the government has consistently delivered.
In fact, we are the only government that, for example, has imposed a price on pollution, something that the member opposite's leader now opposes.
Canadians know that the climate is changing. They know we have significant challenges ahead, and this is an important piece of legislation that will protect the rights of Canadians to a healthy environment. I think Canadians expect us to act quickly.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:31:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, after travelling around the country visiting with indigenous communities over the past two years, the most heartbreaking aspect is visiting a community that has seen a significant degradation of its environment related to industrial activity.
We do not have to look very far. These are communities in northern Ontario. I know some members have never been there, but when one visits the community, one sees environmental pollution, and one could say environmental racism. There are people living there, and they have a right to a healthy environment, just like everyone in Montreal, Toronto, Windsor and Thunder Bay does, for that matter.
This legislation is important. It is important to make sure that we do not have an out-of-sight, out-of-mind perspective when it comes to environmental rights. This legislation helps to get us there.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:47:39 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, one cannot help but ask a question of a Conservative when they stand up and talk about the environment. I am glad that the Conservatives are going to be supporting this particular piece of legislation, but there are many within the Conservative Party who are challenged when it comes to recognizing such things as climate change. There are some who are finding it challenging to review and look at what they told their constituents or voters back in the last federal election, when they said that they were in favour of a price on pollution.
Given his current leader's position on the issue, could the member indicate what he would say to his constituents, having told them in the last election that he supports a price on pollution?
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:52:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, after having had the pleasure of working on it for over 15 meetings on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is Canada’s most important environmental law. CEPA is focused on preventing pollution, managing toxic substances, and protecting the environment and human health. The powers created by CEPA are firmly recognized as a valid exercise of the federal government’s criminal law power. It not only protects us from harmful chemicals, but is also the instrument that was utilized to ban certain single-use plastic items.
CEPA also has a key function in the management of greenhouse gases. The regulation-making authority under CEPA allows the federal government to control the fuel efficiency standards for light duty vehicles and the methane emissions from oil and gas. It will also be the tool used for the forthcoming zero-emissions vehicle mandate, the clean electricity standard and, perhaps, the cap on emissions from oil and gas.
Members can see why this is an important law, but it has not been updated for almost 24 years. The Harper government did not bother to review or update it over the course of the Conservatives' mandate, but it is obvious that much has changed over this period, and our knowledge of chemicals and the environment had greatly progressed. This much was affirmed through the extensive study that was done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development from 2016 to 2017. Many of the recommendations in this report were incorporated into legislation, which was first tabled before the 2021 election and now again in Bill S-5.
I want to thank the members of that committee, including my former colleague, Will Amos, who did important work to get us where we are. I also want to thank the many individuals who have worked on this over the years, including organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, and Canada’s own UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, Dr. David Boyd. It is quite a marvel that both industry and environmental NGOs agreed on the overall framework of this bill and signed a letter to that effect before it was tabled last year.
Bill S-5 is an extremely technical bill, and so I will not get into all of the intricacies of it, but I do want to mention a few highlights.
Bill S-5 would make several major advancements, including, for the first time ever, recognizing a right to a healthy environment in Canadian law. Many of my own constituents, including Lisa Brasso, have been advocating for this right for some time through the Blue Dot campaign, where I was an early signatory during the 2019 election campaign. Since Bill S-5 was tabled, we strengthened this right at committee such that the right will no longer need to balanced against other factors, and it now incorporates the principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity.
Through an amendment I introduced at committee, the act will now expand this right to include a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. This will bring Canada into alignment with internationally accepted definitions, which we voted for at the UN in July of last year. In this respect, “clean” refers to the fight against pollution; “healthy” refers to ecological balance; and “sustainable” refers to the nexus between the environment and development. This is critical in the act, which is most responsible for advancing sustainable development, so that we practice domestically what we preach internationally.
Bill S-5 would also take major steps forward in advancing transparency and accountability so Canadians can have confidence in how chemicals are being managed. It would refocus departments on planning for assessing substances of highest risk first; provide dedicated timelines to reassess these priorities; provide an avenue for the public to request that a minister assess a substance when new data about a substance becomes available, which would require a response in 90 days; require that reasons be given if the final risk assessments of chemicals exceeds two years; require annual progress reporting and timeline reporting; and strengthen provisions around confidential business information.
Bill S-5, for the first time, would assess the potential impacts of chemical substances on vulnerable populations and the cumulative effects that toxic substances may pose to vulnerable populations. It would ensure that we assess the relative vulnerability that individuals, such as pregnant mothers and children, may have to certain chemicals as well as populations that may be more persistently exposed to a substance.
This will dovetail nicely with the legislation we have also recently passed through this chamber, which will require a national strategy on environmental racism and environmental justice. I want to thank my former seatmate, Lenore Zann, for tabling this, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for reintroducing it after the last election. It is important that we make progress on this because environmental racism is not just a historical blight. We continue to see this today, with the most recent example of the Kearl project tailings leaks and their cumulative impacts on first nations downstream.
That is why I invited Imperial Oil and the Alberta Energy Regulator to appear at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to answer for what happened and why they kept the affected communities in the dark. Big oil and what affected communities widely pan as an industry captured regulator, or in the case of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, a “complete joke”, are convinced that they can pull the rug over Canadians' eyes and people will move on. However, the federal government is stepping in to investigate the company and has gathered all implicated parties to figure out long-term solutions to the entire monitoring and notification system.
It also bears mentioning the related amendment the NDP has proposed. The NDP is trying to make the case that we need to specifically list tailings ponds to have the ability to get information on them under section 46, the information-gathering provisions of CEPA, but this flies in the face of the fact that we already have this ability through powers rooted in subsections (c), (e), (f), (h), (i), (k), (l), and a new proposed subsection we added in Bill S-5 to cover activities that may contribute to pollution.
There is a related agreement with Alberta on oil sands monitoring that is rooted in these powers, but the problem in this case is that Alberta inexplicably violated its duty to notify the federal government. I do ask my NDP colleagues to read the full legislation first, to understand how it addresses information on tailings, rather than simply pressing Ctrl+F and typing “tailings” before providing misleading amendments that there is such a gap. To do otherwise, I believe, is an insult to Canadians' intelligence, and it takes time out from other measures that may actually make the legislation better.
I want to take a few minutes to discuss how Bill S-5 could have been improved. For example, I am disappointed that the legislation will only require the that the right to a healthy environment be considered in the administration of the act, rather than require the protection of it. While I have confidence in our minister to bring in a robust system to protect this new right, there is a risk that future governments and future ministers may roll this back.
Second, the committee also narrowly rejected an amendment I proposed that would have required the minister to take measures to protect the right to a healthy environment where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as part of the implementation framework. I think this is a major missed opportunity. Canada is one of the few developed nations that does not have mandatory ambient air quality standards. The federal government’s own 2016 assessment showed that poor air quality costs Canada at least $120 billion and 15,000 deaths per year, making this an obvious action for us to take to save lives and avoid major health costs. I was encouraged that the minister committed that the implementation framework will clarify how the right to a healthy environment lens will apply to the clean air agenda, but this could have been made explicit in the legislation.
1435 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:02:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I will also salute my colleague. We work together on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
The Senate proposed a number of amendments to the bill regarding pollution prevention. To my utter dismay, the Liberals and Conservatives voted against those amendments.
It is often said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, whether we are talking about health or not. Should the same thing not apply to the environment?
Planning for pollution would enable us to prevent disease.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:04:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we need to protect the lives of workers across Canada first and foremost. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act should be protecting those work sites as much as it can.
I will point out as well that the number one site for reclamation in Canada right now is the Giant Mine in Northwest Territories, which is overseen by federal jurisdiction. It is going to cost the federal government $4 billion in order to fix the pollution at that mine at this point in time. This is a failure of regulatory oversight. It is a failure for the environment, and it is a failure we cannot continue to make in Canada. Going forward, it is essential to this country to hold officials accountable for the outcomes affecting our environment, the lives of our workers and the people affected by that environment.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:15:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, we heard from our colleague from Timmins—James Bay about the implications of not doing more to get toxic substances out of our environment. These are substances such as asbestos, mercury and lead. It continues to be the case through the bill that pollution prevention plans would be optional. Our colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands had put forward amendments that would have required pollution prevention plans.
At the current pace of voluntary pollution prevention plans, we will not have the toxic substances in schedule 1 all covered for another 100 years or so. How can the member support the bill as it stands with this voluntary approach?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:31:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I will start with agreeing with the hon. member that the energy sector is extremely important in our country. We need the energy. What we do not want is pollution, particularly carbon dioxide pollution.
CEPA is used to manage greenhouse gases and has been absolutely critical in putting a price on pollution, which the hon. member campaigned for in the last election. His position seems to have changed. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills made it a centrepiece of his Conservative leadership campaign. Stephen Harper used to support a price on pollution, until he did not. Can the member explain his flip-flop and the stark fact that he has switched his position?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:49:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy. I know he works very hard on environmental protection.
The one thing I would say, and I think my hon. colleague knows this very well, is that the reason those references were removed for those specific activities is that they were already captured under subsection 46(1) as activities that may contribute to pollution. The reality is that information on tailings ponds is already collected and reported under CEPA and Canada's public inventory of releases, known as the national pollutant release inventory. This is already being done, so the committee decided not to single out one particular industry because this information is already being collected and shared with Canadians.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:32:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, CEPA allows us to manage greenhouse gases by putting a price on pollution. The hon. member talked about climate disasters, such as what happened in Lytton, and our hearts go out to the people there.
There were 600 people who died under the heat dome. There was a $9-billion impact from the floods, fires and droughts. Tourism and agriculture were destroyed for an entire year. However, the hon. member and his party opposed every single measure that we tried to take on climate change to implement climate action.
Why does the hon. member continue to oppose the price on pollution, our climate actions and things that would prevent these kinds of disasters in the future?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
