44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 15, 2023 11:00AM
- May/15/23 5:35:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I was trying to find a great quote from the Seven Pillars of Wisdom on experts. I may refer to it later.
Suffice it to say, members will obviously, in the committee process, bring in different witnesses. There will be different experts who work in different roles and wear different hats. Some may be involved in environmental advocacy organizations and have one perspective, while others may work for industry and obviously have another perspective informed by their expertise and the context in which they work.
I will go back to the comments I made in my overall remarks that we need to recognize the balance required in environmental policy and consider the policies we pursue in the context of pursuing overall human flourishing.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:36:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it sounds as though the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is supporting the bill, which is good, because I know in 2017, the Conservatives wrote a dissenting report in which they expressed opposition to this idea of the right to a healthy environment.
My question is around labelling. It seems like a big missed opportunities in this bill would be to have clauses requiring the labelling of products that contain toxic substances, including personal care products that contain substances with a risk of causing cancer, reproductive harm and other such harms. Does he agree that this is a missed opportunity in the bill we are debating?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:36:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I think the member is onto something, that people should be able to access information about the risks the products present to them. I also wonder if we need to have a broader conversation about labelling and how that information is presented.
I can recall various debates where people wanted all kinds of information and more detailed labels, but that can present certain challenges and barriers when those labels are not read in detail anyway. Therefore, we would need to have a conversation about QR code labelling and other tools where people can access that information easily, but it does not require the constant reprinting of labels in response to new information. That is a broader conversation, but it is an important area to discuss.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of Bill S-5, one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation to come before the House of Commons.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is a vital piece of legislation that regulates the products we use every day in Canada. From food packaging to the personal care products we put on our bodies to our children's toys, CEPA has provided the regulations to further protect Canadians from exposure to toxic substances and keep all of us and our collective environment healthy since it came into force in 1999.
We received submissions from all across the country with regard to the modernization of this act. That is why I want to thank so many people for participating in the drafting of the bill that is now before us. In particular, I would like to thank Lisa Gue from the David Suzuki Foundation, Cassie Barker from Environmental Defence Canada, Jennifer Beeman from Breast Cancer Action Quebec, Jane McArthur from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Aaron Freeman, the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie and Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the hon. members for Winnipeg South, Lac-Saint-Louis, Repentigny, Victoria and Saanich—Gulf Islands, and the senators who worked so hard to ensure that Bill S-5 came before the House.
Bill S‑5 strengthens Canada's environmental protection measures for individuals, families and communities across the country. It helps to better preserve the measures that we all need to live a healthy life. It protects the water we drink and better regulates the products that we use every day as Canadians. Bill S‑5 is a necessary and long-awaited update of CEPA that guarantees that the act can continue to do in 2023 what it was implemented to do in 1999, and that is to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians.
As the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I consider it an honour to have worked on the modernization of CEPA with the current Minister of Natural Resources and member for North Vancouver when he was minister of environment and climate change. This bill began as Bill C‑28. Most of the elements that we worked on at the time, not to mention the amazing work of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, including the right to a healthy environment, the assessment of the combined effects of substances and the improvement of transparency about consumer goods, are still included and even reinforced in Bill S‑5.
It has been a quarter of a century since CEPA was last updated. As such, many improvements and modifications were necessary. We need only think of the changes in our society we have experienced over the last 25 years, too many to reference, unfortunately, in the short time allotted to me today, to better understand the need for the many key improvements to CEPA included in Bill S-5. I would like to share a select few in my remarks, beginning with an acknowledgement in the preamble of the bill that all Canadians have a right to live in a healthy environment.
Countries around the world, in fact, are acknowledging the relationship between a healthy environment and our human rights. In fact, on June 28 of last year, the UN General Assembly adopted a historic resolution declaring that access to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a universal human right. For the first time in our federal law, Bill S-5 would recognize the right to a healthy environment in Canada, and our country will join 156 fellow members of the United Nations who have done the same in some way, shape or form.
While including the right to a healthy environment represents a historic step for Canada, our government will work hard to secure these rights through a robust evaluation framework and regulations, which we have committed to creating with input from Canadians over the next couple of years. Everything that follows in this newly strengthened CEPA flows from this acknowledgement, including the second aspect of the bill that I would like to speak to, that being the better management of chemicals in Canada, aimed at reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals for all Canadians.
Currently, CEPA uses a science-based approach to evaluate over 4,300 chemicals and reduces the number of harmful chemicals that Canadians encounter in their everyday lives. Canadians have benefited from our strong leadership on the risk assessment and risk management for chemicals.
For example, there are chemicals like BPA, which is a known hormone disruptor that used to be found in bottles for infants. High exposure to BPA can adversely affect the liver, the kidneys, fertility and the brain development of newborn infants. A risk assessment through the chemicals management plan led to a change in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act that made it illegal to manufacture, import, advertise or sell bottles that contained this product in Canada. Canada has worked with industry to successfully phase out the use of BPA-containing packaging for liquid infant formula products available for sale in Canada. Since then, Canadian parents have worried less, knowing that the feeding bottles they are using to nurse their newborn child are free from this dangerous chemical.
Working with Canadians to publish an updated chemicals management priorities plan in Bill S-5 is critical to protecting Canadians against the exponential increase in the volume and concentration of chemicals entering our environment.
In addition to an updated chemicals management priorities plan, proposed subsection 75.1(1) of Bill S-5 requires the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment to list substances capable of becoming toxic. The inclusion of this clause in CEPA would help address the problem of regrettable substitutions and deter manufacturers from replacing the use of one equally hazardous chemical for another. These updates to this bill, among others, would weed out toxins in our products at the source, so that Canadians do not have to at their local grocery or hardware store.
Another key improvement to CEPA in Bill S-5 is the incorporation of cumulative effects assessments. Why is this important? It is quite simple. The pace and scale at which new chemicals are being produced and added to our products and environment are astounding. Since 1950, chemical production has increased fiftyfold, and today there are approximately 90,000 chemicals used domestically in Canada and the United States. The largest concentrations of toxic substances are often found in the cheapest products. The reality is that with the sheer quantity of chemicals now present in our everyday lives, it has become an ever so daunting task to fully appreciate and identify hazards. Most Canadians do not have the time or expertise to determine which products, combined with other products, could be dangerous and more and more are counting on us, as their federally elected representatives, to ensure that we are doing this imperative work for them and that the laws and regulations in place are strong enough to protect them and their loved ones.
In the current version of CEPA, assessments are conducted on the singular impacts of each chemical individually. The significant change included in Bill S-5 would address the cumulative effects on human health and the environment that may result from exposure to the substance in combination with exposure to other substances and would require cumulative effects to be considered in the risk assessment through CEPA when information is available.
Another important aspect of this bill is the improvements to CEPA that address social justice when it comes to our health and our environment and recognize it is intrinsic to environmental protection. Bill S-5 explicitly requires that the federal government consider vulnerable populations in the assessment of toxic substances. Social challenges in indigenous, low-income and racialized communities are further exacerbated by environmental ones when a landfill, a water treatment facility or a chemical plant is located in their backyards. This change to CEPA would help ensure that the health of vulnerable communities is considered through the implementation of CEPA regulation.
As I mentioned in committee and in the House, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the most important piece of legislation that most Canadians know very little about, yet it has been protecting the environment every day for decades. With the changes proposed in Bill S‑5, it will continue to protect the environment and all Canadians for decades to come. By passing this bill, we parliamentarians are clearly affirming that their health and safety will always be our priority.
I look forward to joining all members in this House in voting in favour of Bill S-5, moving it to the next level of our parliamentary process and, finally, ushering in a new era of environmental protection in Canada.
1519 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:47:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, my colleague started his speech by paying special tribute to the work of non-governmental organizations. However, most, if not all, of the amendments that were moved by the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, based on input from the environmental groups, were brushed aside by the government and the official opposition.
I think a lot remains to be accomplished if we hope to really modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and protect the public's health and the environment.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:48:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague, the member for Repentigny, for her exceptional work on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I was fortunate to work with her. We worked well together and collaborated closely with the community and environmental groups that came to share their ideas.
I think that all of the parties and the Government of Canada did a great job of including most of these groups' recommendations in Bill S‑5. I believe that extremely positive changes will follow for all Canadians.
Of course, there are other things we could do, but I think that we have made a lot of progress in terms of protecting the environment for the good of Canadians. I am very proud of the work we did.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:48:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I find it really interesting that the government deliberately excluded the tailings ponds in the Athabasca from review, because we know that just prior to the illegal tailings pond leak at Imperial Oil, the environment minister was scheduled to allow a massive release of the toxic chemicals that are in that contaminated water into the Athabasca River system.
We know from speaking with Fort Chipewyan and the Mikisew Cree that they suffer high levels of cancer. We are dealing with ammonia, lead, mercury, benzene and other contaminants, and yet the environment minister was more than willing to let this be released into the Athabasca River. These are tailings ponds that are 2.6 times the size of the city of Vancouver and are growing every day. When is the government going to actually deal with the massive level of water contamination coming out of the oil sands projects?
150 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 5:50:40 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am sure the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges would agree with me that the right to a healthy environment needs to be more than a bumper sticker. I wonder if he would share to what extent he is similarly disappointed that reasonable amendments from many parties, including from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which would have ensured that the right to a healthy environment is not just considered but protected, were not accepted?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:51:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is a strong advocate, and I very much enjoy working with him and having discussions about how we can improve environmental protection in Canada.
I would be honest to say that I would like to have seen more robust inclusion of a right to a healthy environment in this piece of legislation. I would be lying if I said anything different, but this is a huge improvement. Every time we put forward a piece of legislation in this House, we need to be doing right by Canadians by moving the needle forward and always advancing. That is what we have done here. Hopefully, by working with the hon. member and other members in this House as this moves forward and is reviewed every couple of years, we will be able to do that in the years to come.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:52:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Laurentides—Labelle to speak to Bill S‑5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.
I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois is in favour in principle of the bill. However, a word of caution: Agreeing in principle does not mean signing a blank cheque.
As my colleagues know, our party is highly allergic to anything to do with jurisdictions and the federal government's intrusion into matters that are the responsibility of the Government of Quebec. It is in our DNA. We know that the current government will use any excuse to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.
I would say to my colleagues across the way to not think they can take us in. That seems to be a clear pattern in the government's legislative agenda. I want to remind the federal government that the elected members of the National Assembly of Quebec are against any federal government intervention in environmental matters, except where the current legal framework makes the Government of Canada responsible for certain provisions. That is why the Bloc Québécois will keep a close watch. We will ensure that the federal government takes care of its responsibilities properly before taking on more.
Bill S-5 is, first and foremost, a technical bill, which is a shame. This bill is not ambitious enough to address the current climate crisis. It is unbelievable. Bold action is needed. It is important to act to ensure that the right to live in a healthy environment is enshrined in law, as it is in Quebec. In 2006, the Quebec National Assembly passed legislation that states, “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law”.
That is not yet the case in Canada.
The United Nations passed a resolution on July 26, 2022. In the resolution the UN said that:
...climate change and environmental degradation were some of the most pressing threats to humanity's future. It called on states to step up efforts to ensure their people have access to a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment”.
That is not yet the case in Canada.
In 2021, the New York State Assembly passed a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right to a healthy environment in the state constitution.
That is not yet the case in Canada.
In 2004, the French government incorporated an environmental charter into the French constitution. I would like to share part of the preamble:
Natural resources and equilibriums have conditioned the emergence of mankind;
The future and very existence of mankind are inextricably linked with its natural environment;
The environment is the common heritage of all mankind;
Mankind exerts ever-increasing influence over the conditions for life and its own evolution;
Biological diversity, the fulfilment of the person and the progress of human societies are affected by certain types of consumption or production and by excessive exploitation of natural resources;
Care must be taken to safeguard the environment along with the other fundamental interests of the Nation;
In order to ensure sustainable development, choices designed to meet the needs of the present generation should not jeopardise the ability of future generations and other peoples to meet their own needs,
...
This is not yet the case in Canada.
In Laurentides—Labelle, nature is a way of life. I am sure that everyone listening to me would agree. It has a national park, the oldest one in Quebec, by the way, along with two wildlife reserves, regional parks scattered across the riding, and countless lakes and rivers. Laurentides—Labelle alone has over 10,000. Nature surrounds us, but it is also a major economic driver for the northern Laurentians.
Early in my career, I worked in the forest industry for seven years. I am very proud of the industry personally, but also on behalf of the Antoine-Labelle regional county municipality, where it still plays an important role to this day.
Let us look back into the past. In the 2000s, the forestry industry was seen as harmful in many ways. Fortunately, science has come to the rescue of this industry. We now know, and I hope everyone does, that forest management is imperative if we want healthy forests. Our forests are key to our health and to our environment. They capture CO2. We could talk about the two billion trees that will probably never get planted by 2030 despite the government's promise to do so. Sometimes I have to make people aware that a fully mature tree releases all of the CO2 that it captured. Nature takes its course. We can see the forest fires and epidemics that are happening now. If we use our forests wisely and we use the raw material with secondary and tertiary processing products to construct new builds, we are helping to preserve the environment.
I will fight until the end, as I have been doing since I was 20 years old, to make people aware of how important the forestry industry is to both our environmental and economic ecosystems. I cannot emphasize it enough. It is the very definition of sustainable development, and our region is on the front lines.
Two weeks ago to the day, I was really worried about the images I was seeing from Laurentides—Labelle. In Sainte‑Agathe‑des‑Monts, the Demontigny Street bridge and the Château-Bleu Road bridge were closed. The water level, the highest it has ever been, made the roads impassable, and they are still impassable today. The same situation is playing out in Val‑Morin, where the 7th Avenue bridge is badly damaged. In Sainte‑Adèle, several roads have also been closed because they are too dangerous to use. Lac Raymond, the Rivière du Nord and the Rivière aux Mulets were overflowing. Homes flooded and infrastructure needs to be rebuilt.
This is unusual in southern Laurentides—Labelle, just as it is in many other parts of Quebec. I am of course thinking of the people of Baie‑Saint‑Paul, in Charlevoix. Extreme weather events are now frequent. It is outrageous.
There was the derecho in May 2022, the rock slides in Mont‑Tremblant last summer and the ice storm in early April. We must act. This bill is called the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. It is time for the government to have the courage to act. People ask me if enough is being done. People know that not enough is being done. In fact, they actually feel as though nothing is being done. Let us have the courage to act, because healthy citizens are the ones who have a healthy environment and who benefit from a healthy economy focused on sustainable development.
1173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:01:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Laurentides—Labelle for her commitment to her community and to the environment. I also want to give a shout-out to the member for Repentigny. I enjoyed working with her very much. It was a very collaborative committee, and I think Parliament needs to see more of that.
I would ask the hon. member for a comment. I have been hearing from the Bloc that we did not adopt this or that Senate amendment. We adopted 70% of the Senate amendments, and by all accounts, from environmental groups to industry to everyone else, this bill is a great improvement over CEPA, 1999.
The issue of air quality standards has come up. That is a very sensitive issue delving into provincial jurisdiction. Does the hon. member agree that this should be done together with the federal government? I would expect the Bloc to be very sensitive to that issue.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:02:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, how can they say that they listened to the proposals, took action, accepted the changes to the legislation, when they ignored the individuals themselves, for example from the forestry industry, who were consulted and who provided recommendations? The proposals presented by the Bloc Québécois came from the forestry industry.
I am having a hard time understanding why the recommendations made in committee were completely dismissed and are not included in the bill.
78 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 6:04:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I told the people of Laurentides—Labelle that we had an example in the promise to plant two billion trees by 2030. People are wondering. Are they really going to change the law to try to have a healthy environment when they are so behind in everything I just outlined in the past few minutes?
People need to have more confidence and to hear from all parliamentarians. This is not about telling them that we are going to adopt this bill and make amendments later.
I was saying that they need to have the courage to take action and now is the time to do it. As long as we do not see a modicum of effort and energy, we will continue to fight because we do not believe them.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:05:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, the right to a healthy environment is set out in the bill's preamble. Therefore, it does not apply to other laws.
Does my colleague believe that the government lacked the courage to establish a real right to a healthy environment in its modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:06:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, when the government implements small measures, it often does so to ease its conscience. Had it had the courage to act, it would have overhauled the environmental law. We are among the laggards. It is embarrassing when we go abroad and are told about the state of our law. I believe that answers my colleague's question
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:06:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate tonight to talk about amendments that have been proposed to Bill S-5, which is an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999.
I have now had a chance to review many of the amendments that are before the House right now. I want to focus my comments on one particular area, and perhaps express some concern over the lack of clarity with regard to this area, coming into the report stage of the bill, as well as to provide some suggestions should the bill progress further. I want to do so as a representative from the province of Alberta.
I will start by echoing the statement by my colleague from the Bloc earlier. There is a lot in the bill to agree on in principle, but there is concern in terms of how the bill's current format could actually affect things like provincial jurisdiction. My colleague who just finished debate spoke a little bit about it in the context of her province, and I want to talk about it in the context of mine.
The area I want to focus on is how the government has approached the concept within the bill of the right to a healthy environment. I would like to think that every Canadian certainly supports the right to a healthy environment. On behalf of my province, I would say that so many Albertans, sometimes undeservedly and politically, get cast as not caring about the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are so many Albertans who utterly respect our natural heritage and also want to ensure that we have a strong, sound approach to addressing climate change that actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions, ensures economic growth and addresses the fact that we are in an affordability crisis.
The government, to date, in spite of having spent billions of dollars, has really failed to provide Canadians with a lot of affordable, readily available substitute goods for high-carbon consumer products and practices. At the same time, it has also has failed to address the issue of energy security in Canada.
Going back to the principle of a right to a healthy environment, how the government has approached it and where the bill is at right now with regard to the amendment phase, in terms of how Canada has approached legislating a right to a healthy environment, I do not think it is fair to say that, collectively, across political stripes of various forms of government, Canada has not done that in the past. I would argue, hopefully from a non-partisan perspective, that Canada has some of the strictest environmental protection laws in the world, across a collection of legislation, including the Transportation Act, CEPA, and, at the provincial level, through our environmental assessment review processes of major natural resource projects.
I could go on, but the reality is that we do have a legislative framework that reflects those principles of how we use land and how we assess projects in terms of their impact on the environment. The bill that we are discussing tonight, on CEPA, would also do that. However, my concern is that the government, in this phase of the bill, has actually not defined how it is planning on looking at this term within the context of the bill. Also, with the current status of the bill, it is going to take that process behind closed doors in some sort of framework development process that is not outlined in the bill.
I really am concerned about several things. First of all, we do not know the sufficiency of what this measure is supposed to do. We really do not have any way of evaluating that, number one, and other colleagues of all political stripes have actually raised that as a concern in the House. So that is a big deficiency with the bill right now. Second, because that is not defined, there are very significant concerns that have already been raised in debate, and that I want to echo on behalf of my province, about how this could infringe upon provincial jurisdiction.
If this bill does proceed to the next phase, the onus is on the government, rather than to just take this process behind closed doors with a very narrow set of stakeholders who might have the minister's ear or the department's ear, to really open that up and particularly lean on provinces to have input into this process. There also need to be stakeholders from civil society, from industry and also, importantly, from first nations groups, indigenous persons who have traditional knowledge that needs to be imported into this process. I am very uncomfortable with how the government has attempted to address this issue. It feels like it is just checking a box without actually putting any meat in here for us to debate. We might have different opinions on that, but I hope that all my colleagues would agree that how this term is laid out in the bill right now is not sufficient.
Third or fourth, I am not sure where I am at as there are so many concerns on this provision, I am also concerned that, because the government has not provided clarity on this, we are adding essentially another barrier to either investment or environmental mitigation measures by not providing that clarity. The government should have put some sort of principle in here about whether it foresaw the enforcement of a right to a healthy environment, in the context of the bill, as an administrative function or as a function of the judiciary. What I mean is that it should have given some sort of hint about whether this framework it was providing could have included, for example, a privative clause. That is something that we should have been debating in the House, and now what the government is saying is “No, no, we are just going to put that behind closed doors.”
Some of my colleagues might disagree with me on whether enforcement should be administrative or whether it should be in the judiciary, but, again, because we do not have that clarity, I want to just put on the record what I think, on behalf of my province, about how this should be administered. I really think that, without clarity on how this is going to be enforced, we now are opening ourselves up, as a country, to what could be vexatious complaints on the enforcement of this right. Just as a colloquial example, and it might not be exactly in this context, but let us say that someone has a bonfire in their backyard and neighbours get a little cheesed at them. They complain, saying that they have a right to a healthy environment. Now they are suing the municipality on the bylaws.
What I am trying to say is that the way it is written, with the lack of clarity, could have major impacts on housing strategies. I could see this being used to protest, like NIMBY. People might say that they have a right to a healthy environment, so they do not want a certain tree cut down or they do not want a backyard filled in with a multiplex. The same goes for roads or, also, carbon-mitigating infrastructure, such as public transit projects, which, just for the record, I would like to have more of in my riding as well.
I am very concerned that the government has not put more details and more meat in here on the context, on how it plans to enforce this and also on its consultation process. What we have seen with the government is that things like this just sort of disappear into the bureaucracy, where people and stakeholder groups that have privileged access end up pulling this out of a democratic process. What that does is disenfranchise the provinces, and it also disenfranchises, I think, first nations persons as well. We cannot be talking about the right to a healthy environment without enshrining that principle of first nations knowledge in this particular principle. Should the bill proceed, these are principles that have to be embedded in the consultation process, and the government has an onus to report back to Parliament on how it is doing this. It can certainly rest assured that we will be holding it to account on that.
I will close my time with this, just to emphasize and bookend what I said at the front end: My province cares deeply about the environment. She is coming to the end of her term in public service, but I would like to congratulate Alberta's environment minister, Sonya Savage, who, I think, has cross-partisan support. She has a storied and long history of understanding the nuances between natural resource development and environmental protection. She delivered a very strong net-zero commitment for climate change in Alberta and also recognizes the Alberta context in which that was built out, which is that we are industry-heavy with our emissions, and that industry has to be brought to the table in a stage-gated approach, so that we are not just looking at hope on targets but actually putting a plan together to achieve those targets. I want to congratulate her as I close my speech tonight.
1567 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:16:39 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Sorry, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. It is so automatic to call the other one.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:16:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, some people think the deputy House leader and I look alike, but I beg to differ; he is much better-looking.
I want to thank the hon. member for raising the issue of a right to a healthy environment. We had 50 hours of deliberations in committee. I sat through most of them. I just want to assure the hon. member that no one from industry raised a concern. There were some concerns raised by environmental groups. I would just assure the hon. member that the implementation framework would last about 24 months. There would be deep consultation and there would be transparency. We will get back to the member with the plan. There would be deep consultation with the provinces, indigenous governments and stakeholders. This is to answer that very question she asked about how a right to a healthy environment would be implemented, and to provide clarity.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
