SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 197 - May/15/23

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

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

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

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

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

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

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

Secretary

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

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

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/15/23 6:18:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's response. I also think he would understand that, when I hear from the government “Do not worry; just trust us”, I am not so sure about that. Also, the reality is that we do have a very important issue facing our country, which is climate change. The Liberal government has failed to meet its targets. It has failed to provide the type of infrastructure, for example, for my riding that could get cars off the road, provide those substitute goods for high-carbon consumer products and practices, and actually have a productive working relationship with provinces and understand that fighting on this constantly is not building a collaborative relationship. All I ask is that, if the bill proceeds, the government really enshrine that principle of working with the provinces, respecting jurisdiction and ensuring that there is transparency, particularly in the enforcement mechanism.

151 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

May/15/23 6:19:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees with some points, especially with regard to territorial sovereignty. Quebec already has its own law, the Environment Quality Act. The smooth-talking Liberals are in government. I will remind members of their track record. Canada has the worst record of any G7 country for the average per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Since the arrival of the Liberals in 2015, Canada is the only G7 country whose greenhouse gas emissions have increased. That is quite the record. However, I can say what the government is good at. Canada is second among the G20 countries for public investment in fossil fuels. Trans Mountain now has a $30-billion price tag. That is a significant sum. Yes, we agree with respecting environmental laws. However, how can this government, which boasts about being a green government, justify this type of bill today?

148 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/15/23 6:20:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would never defend the Liberal government, just to be very clear to my colleague. We agree that there has to be some change there. The reality is that Canada is a large country that is natural-resource-intensive in terms of its economic output. It is cold here. We do not have the substitute goods that we need, in the Canadian context, to lower the price elasticity of carbon. The government could tax carbon all it wants and it could set targets, picked out of the air, but until it actually, fundamentally solves the question of price elasticity in the Canadian economic and social context, while keeping affordability sound, we are not going to achieve those targets. That is what the government should be focusing on.

132 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

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

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/15/23 6:22:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, just to re-emphasize the point I tried to make in my speech, the government has not included any sort of clarity with this provision, either on scope or on enforceability. It is really unfortunate. It is a missed opportunity, particularly now that we are in report stage. The government needs to fix that.

56 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/15/23 6:22:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in Canada's number one riding, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. In preparation for my remarks this evening, I began to think about all the challenges my riding faced in 2021. Just shy of two years ago, the village of Lytton burned to the ground. Forest fires consumed the province of B.C. Lives were lost, animals were lost and homes were lost. We are still recovering from the devastation, especially in the Okanagan, the Similkameen Valley and the Fraser Canyon. To fast forward a few months, things got even worse. A new term, “atmospheric river”, was coined. Basically, we had such a deluge of rain that I have never seen the like in my life. The fields of Sumas Prairie and Matsqui Prairie were flooded. Critical infrastructure and dikes were wiped out. The roads that had saved people in the village of Lytton were washed away. At Jackass Summit, a large portion of the road the size of a CFL football field was completely washed away into the Fraser River. My communities are still recovering and waiting for help. Help does not always come in the form of a flashy announcement or with another consultative meeting. In many respects, help is solely related to good governance, to the laws we put in place to deal with any challenging environmental issues we face in our country. In 2016, before I was elected and when I was still a political staffer, I read with great interest a paper put forward by some very competent people at Environment and Climate Change Canada. It is called “Discussion Paper: Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999: Issues & Possible Approaches”. I will note in my review of this paper and the bill before us this evening that a number of issues, such as improving information-gathering provisions and acts on new substances and activities, risk management and living organisms, were covered in that report. However, many areas that were already identified by the Government of Canada almost eight years ago were not included in this legislation today. I am dismayed by that. I remember fondly how the member for Kingston and the Islands; the former member of Parliament for Pontiac; Hugs Bossio, who was here at the time; and many Liberal members criticized the Conservatives for not taking action on the environment. How dare we not do more for the environment? A comprehensive report was tabled, but many of the recommendations have not been put in place, even today. This includes recommendations put forward by the Liberals. What makes matters even worse is that the current government did not prioritize the modernization of Canada's foremost environmental laws as a matter for this chamber to debate and deliberate. Instead, it punted this matter to the Senate. While I admit some improvements have been made, as a British Columbian, I will always stand up when a Senate government bill comes before this House. I mention that because British Columbia only has five senators out of 108 right now, so every senator in B.C. represents approximately one million people. B.C. is the economic future of our country. British Columbia is home to many mining companies; the Vancouver Stock Exchange is full of mining companies and start-ups. This morning, I met with a team of leading scientists at the University of British Columbia who said that these companies are doing a lot of good things that are essential to protecting the environment and will be essential to Canada's economic development in the years ahead. British Columbia is home to some of the most diverse and ecologically sensitive marine areas in Canada in our temperate rain forests. It is home to a growing port. In my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, it is home to where the CP and CN rail lines meet. I mention all this because, in that 2016 discussion paper, there were points on preventing marine pollution. If there is one thing British Columbians love, it is the run of the salmon. It is that moment as a young kid when we finally get one on our rod on the Fraser River and really feel a sense of jubilation. We need to protect that for future generations. We could have done more for salmon in this bill before us today. However, perhaps because there are only five senators from British Columbia, 24 from Quebec and 24 from Ontario, there was not enough emphasis put on my province and our unique environmental needs. I cannot fault the Senate; I have to fault the Constitution. However, it was irresponsible of the Senate not to do more to protect British Columbia in the bill that it received from the government. Similarly, we could have done a lot more on preventing pollution from the transboundary movement of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material. Recently, at the industry committee, I asked officials about certificates and rules of origin regarding the exportation of garbage from Canada into the United States and subsequently into Asian countries, which buy our waste. We could have done a lot more in this bill to ensure that Canadians are not exporting their waste to third world countries. In fact, my colleague from Canada's breadbasket in Simcoe spoke at length about this and tried to pass a bill, only to have the environment minister say it was not relevant; the bill was defeated. Here, we again had an opportunity to do something to stop the exportation of plastic waste, but neither the government nor its Senate members took that opportunity. In my riding, there have been many instances in which we did not have proper emergency alerts. Small communities were cut off. The port of metro Vancouver was cut off from the rest of Canada. There were over 30 washouts on the CN and CP rail lines. In November 2021, British Columbia was isolated from the rest of Canada. The 2016 report from Environment and Climate Change Canada talked about improving CEPA in terms of preventing and responding to emergencies. None of those actions were taken, even though the government spent more on the disaster in my riding than on any other disaster in the history of Canada; it did not receive ample attention or consideration. Again, I point to the fact that there are only five senators from British Columbia, one for every million people or so. Another part of the bill that was addressed in the 2016 paper and relates to my riding is supporting environmental protections related to federal activities on aboriginal lands. We are talking about reserves here. I represent over 31 bands. Many of them were wiped out by disasters as well. We had an opportunity here to improve emergency response management, give indigenous people the tools they need to be stewards of the land, put in place protocols, and allow resources from Ottawa to be used in areas of environmental significance where indigenous people live in greater proportion compared with other Canadian citizens. We had an opportunity to do something about that, but we did not. Again, I can point to the fact that B.C. only has five senators, with one million or so people for every senator representing our province. We needed to do more for indigenous communities, but the Senate and its government members did not listen. Another area of the bill that I hear about often is strengthening the enforcement of CEPA, and I have heard this in the chamber this evening. In Nova Scotia, there was recently an issue with respect to baby eels, and I could go on to talk about salmon as well. I could go on, but at this point, I am going to have to take questions.

1310 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

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

Mr. Brad Vis

May/15/23 6:33:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, for the most part, what I am opposed to is an out-of-touch government that has spoken a lot about protecting the environment, but when it actually had the chance to act and make substantial improvements for the people of Lytton, it did not take those necessary steps. This is even though the government has politicized the people of Lytton from time to time. People in Lytton do not have homes. People in Lytton are still living in hotels. People in Lytton want governance and to see the operationalization of announcements made in their community.

98 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/15/23 6:34:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to extend condolences to everyone in his riding who has experienced this disaster. It is important to recognize that they are victims of climate change. My colleague talked a lot about the Senate, but I would like to remind him that the Liberals and the Conservatives did not listen to any environmental groups, unlike the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party, which made proposals based on information from environmental groups. I completely understand that the people of his riding want to promote economic development, but I am tired of people pitting environmental protection against economic development. I look forward to a day when the two are finally reconciled. In this case, unfortunately, the Liberal-Conservative coalition rejected everything the environmental groups were calling for.

142 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/15/23 6:35:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the people of Lytton and the Fraser Canyon want the federal and provincial governments to take action to improve infrastructure so that they can live in their town. Investments are needed so that these people can continue living in their town. Nearly two years after the disaster, we are not there yet.

54 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/15/23 6:36:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his speech; his points about Lytton are well taken. I think everyone's hearts continue to go out to the folks there, who need more action from the government. I noted their community broke yet another temperature record just the other day by 7°C, if I recall correctly. My colleague spoke about how this bill did not address the specific needs of our shared home province. Could he expand on what amendments or clauses he wishes were contained in this bill that would better address the needs of British Columbians when it comes to a healthy environment?

113 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/15/23 6:36:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, that was the whole point of my speech. It was about taking action on preventing and responding to emergencies, supporting environmental protection related to aboriginal lands and strengthening the enforcement of CEPA. They were all points I raised in my speech. It all goes to the point that British Columbia is never going to get its fair share in this country until we have equal elected and effective representation in both chambers of this House and of this Parliament. I hope the member appreciates that.

87 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

May/15/23 6:37:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-28

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