44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 15, 2023 11:00AM
- May/15/23 12:23:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear the member opposite talk about the many different ways environments can be degraded. As I said, in a nutshell, this act would recognize a right to a healthy environment and strengthen the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances. It would impose a duty on the government to protect that right and to uphold related principles.
I will just say that many of these tragedies we are talking about are decades old, yet people are still living with the environmental impacts to this day. I was speaking with people in Grassy Narrows last week about the ongoing contamination of water and about the life that many of the residents have, in living with mercury poisoning. These are conversations that should alarm us all and compel us to act quickly, and that is what today is about.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:26:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for talking about the need to have stringent requirements for corporations to not pollute the environment, which not just our generation but also the generations to follow will rely on. This is an important part of that. This legislation would recognize the right to a healthy environment and impose a duty on the government to protect that right and uphold related principles. It would require ministers to develop an implementation framework within two years and to conduct research to support the protection of the right. The legislation is expected to support strong environmental and health standards now and in the future, and there would be a ton of opportunity, through this legislation, to strengthen the rights to a healthy environment and to strengthen the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances that have deleterious health effects for so many Canadians.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:29:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I take note that this debate on a time allocation motion about an environmental protection act really has nothing to do with the issue the Conservatives keep raising.
The only thing they can talk about, when it has to do with the environment, is Montreal and what it does with its sewage system. If they really wanted to help Montreal, perhaps they would talk about helping Montreal with infrastructure to upgrade the capacity, so it is no longer put in those types of situations.
That seems to be the go-to when it is anything related to the environment. We are talking about a piece of legislation that will significantly overhaul the way we look at environmental protection in our country for generations to come. I am wondering if the minister can talk about, and I know that she already has, and highlight some of the specifics of what this legislation will do to improve the quality of life of Canadians for generations to come.
167 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 12:31:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about the need for the government to listen to indigenous communities. The AFN wrote to the government and provided recommendations.
The first recommendation was to include the words “future generations” in the protection of the right to a healthy environment. We heard the same recommendation from indigenous leaders at committee. Giving future generations a right to a healthy environment is not only a critical step forward to protect human health and the environment, but also an important way to listen and act on the recommendations from indigenous leaders.
I tabled an amendment to reflect that request, but the government voted it down. I am wondering if the minister can speak to why.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:22:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and support this legislation, Bill S-5. I understand, from what I have been told, that all members of the House recognize its value and are in favour of supporting it. As the House will know, it is a substantive piece of legislation.
It has been a long time since we have seen substantial changes to our environmental laws, which is the essence of what Bill S-5 would do. In many ways, it would make substantive changes that would modernize the law and make a very powerful statement to all Canadians. They have a right to a healthy environment. The essence of Bill S-5 is about ensuring that Canadians recognize they have a right to a healthy environment.
What is interesting is the process that has brought us to where we are today. The legislation has been thoroughly debated in different committees, both at the Senate and at the House of Commons, and it has already had a substantial number of amendments. During the years I was in opposition, it was rare to see amendments, unless of course they were government amendments, but when we think of—
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:33:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, several years ago, the environment committee made recommendations regarding national standards for clean air and clean water. Why have these two important elements in protecting the environment been ignored as Bill S-9?
35 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:36:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to hear some more details, specifically about whether this bill does anything to guarantee a healthy environment.
How does the member explain the fact that this bill is primarily technical, despite the seriousness of the climate crisis? It is really too bad that the bill's sponsor did not have the guts to consider what might happen after Bill S-5 passes.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:37:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I was part of the committee that studied this. The environment committee spent hours looking at this technical legislation.
The hon. member has zeroed in on one of the cruxes of the legislation, which is the right to a healthy environment. Something we discussed at length was toxicity and how to limit that on animals that could then become part of the food chain. There are also animals being tested in laboratories. We need to get away from the toxicity that harms animal health and therefore our health.
Could the hon. member talk about why it is important to have a healthy environment?
105 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 1:48:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I thought the hon. member did not want us to talk about the environment from this side. That is my first impression of his question. On the other hand, I thought we were talking about clean air, clean water, toxic substances and so forth; I also thought I was talking about red tape and regulations. Canadians need fewer regulations, less taxation, less red tape and more action. That makes sense; on this side of the House, that is what I believe we need to do in order to move forward with a very balanced and good plan to protect the environment.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 1:49:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, there is a different way of looking at things and dealing with things. We are very much more practical on this side of the House. This is a style of management that different parties have. We need less regulation. We have too many regulations, and we need to look at that; we need less ideology in terms of looking at everything, especially the environment.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:50:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I just want to get some things straightened out. The member talked about there being no definition of clean air or clean water in this legislation; it is sort of open to interpretation. Running with the track record of the government for the last eight years, the government has actually made more red tape and made things more confusing to anybody who really wanted to do something better for the environment. This is coming from a government that actually charged hospital administrators a carbon tax to heat their own hospitals during a pandemic. I wonder if the member across the way can comment on why he is looking for more clarification on this bill.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 4:47:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, our best option to protect the environment would indeed be to include this right in the Constitution. I know that would be more difficult, because it requires the support of all the provinces.
Other countries have included this right in their constitutions. I would be in favour of that. This bill will give us very good protections, but they require a very good implementation framework. I hope this process can begin shortly and we can make the necessary changes.
81 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 5:18:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the bill evolves every time we make amendments to it.
There is already talk of a second bill in this session of Parliament to further strengthen the act. Perfecting the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a long-term project, so to speak. I can be less enthusiastic if my colleague would prefer.
The member must admit that the whole idea of a right to a healthy environment is a major step forward. Obviously, that right is not set out in the Canadian Constitution, but it will influence all sorts of laws and regulations. It is an important part of the act.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:21:30 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this afternoon on Bill S-5, legislation that the government has put forward in the Senate and is now with us in the House. It is a bit of an environmental policy omnibus, as it brings together a number of different kinds of provisions updating various pieces of legislation.
Conservatives are prepared to support this legislation. We think, generally, that the direction of it is positive, that it improves on its absence. Therefore, we are going to be supporting it, but it is also an opportunity to reflect, more broadly, on the government's approach to environmental policy because I think we are seeing, at a macro level, a lot of failures from the government in environmental policy. These are failures in how it acts and how it thinks about the environmental challenges in front of us.
Before I get into particulars, I wanted to propose a framework for thinking about environmental policy. When we debate questions in the House, there are some questions we debate that deal in moral absolutes, questions of absolute right or absolute wrong about how we are acting or how the state might treat a person. In such cases, we do not apply a consequentialist filter to determinations about those things. We say that this sort of action is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of any sort of effort to interpret the consequences in a favourable way. There are issues we deal with that relate to questions of absolute right and wrong, absolute justice and injustice, etc.
There are also questions, though, that we evaluate on consequential grounds, where the thing being done in and of itself is not intrinsically impermissible, unjust or just. Rather, the thing being done, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, can be assessed in its consequences.
In moral reasoning, there are those who tend to want to apply absolute moral considerations to a broader range of areas, and there are those who want expand the space of areas in which we consider things on a purely consequentialist grounds. Those are important debates, and there are maybe cases at the margins where we ask if this is a scenario where we would apply absolute reasoning or consequentialist reasoning.
For those with a certain kind of view and a perspective on the environment, they take a very absolutist approach. They are the ones to say that one ought not to be producing greenhouse gas emissions, or one ought not to be engaging in certain kinds of industrial production, period, full stop. If it is hurting the planet, therefore it is an absolute wrong, regardless of the immediate consequences. There are those who take that perspective.
My view is, though, that an environmental policy consideration should be viewed through a consequentialist lens, that is whether emissions are justified in a particular case or not, whether emissions should be allowed and what kind of regulation or taxation policy should be applied in particular cases. Those should be evaluated, not through the lens of moral absolutes, but through the lens of consequences. Does allowing emissions in a particular case produce better consequences or not?
Those who take the opposite view and argue for absolutist evaluation on environmental policy, I think, have to explain why we should not consider consequences. Why should we not countenance that producing emissions in certain cases may have better consequences for humanity in general, or for the environment in particular, just because of an absolute opposition they have to producing emissions in a particular case? I do not see any text or basis for saying that there is an absolute moral prohibition on producing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, I see this as being a space of consequentialist moral evaluation.
When one is looking at environmental policy through a consequentialist lens, when one is producing greenhouse emissions here, one always has to ask if it is displacing greenhouse gas emissions somewhere else. What are the net effects, in human security, human happiness, economic well-being and the environment? In general, the consequentialist reasoning Conservatives apply is why we are inclined to be very supportive, for instance, of energy development here in Canada, which we see as displacing less clean, and also potentially more negative, from a security perspective, energy being produced in other countries.
We say that expanding the Canadian oil and gas sector, even if it is within a certain narrow geographic band, might increase apparent emissions. However, if it is decreasing global emissions because it is displacing emissions in other cases, or if, in the production of that energy, we are generating new technology that could be used in other parts of the world to have positive effects overall, we are willing to say that, yes, that industrial activity is a net positive so we support it.
In other cases, they might say that Canada's producing more energy is bringing about security improvements in the world. If we are displacing Russian gas being exported to Europe by increasing our production and exporting it to Europe, the consequential impacts would be that Russia would not be able to fuel its war machine by selling gas to Europe so it would not able to continue this war. Russia's being less able to prosecute the war against Ukraine would be good for security, human life and well-being around the world. This is particularly true not only around Ukraine, but also more broadly. It is a positive overall.
Rather than taking an ideological, absolutist approach to environmental policy, we need to take a consequentialist approach to look at the full range of impacts, what the economic, well-being, security and environmental impacts are, and weigh the decision to develop versus the decision to not develop within that larger consequentialist framework.
As I try to understand where different parties are coming from in the House and why they come to different conclusions, I see a philosophical difference on environmental policy between the official opposition, for instance, and some of the other parties in this place. It is not that one group of people is concerned about the environment and the other is not. We are all concerned about the impact of policies on the environment. We all recognize the role that environmental policy plays in contributing to humans' flourishing or not and to human well-being, etc. However, we believe that those evaluations should be done in a consequentialist way, as opposed to this absolute opposition to certain kinds of development and resources, etc.
We hear things from even the government that suggest that it is buying in to this more absolutist way of looking at environmental policy when we have, for instance, repeatedly tried to push the government. We have said it is important to develop our oil and gas sector, for instance, to displace less environmentally friendly sources of energy in other parts of the world. The government members will say that, no, these particular kinds of fuels are the energy of the past and the solution to 20th century instead of the 21st century. Just factually, that is not true. Oil and gas continues to be a very significant part of the global energy mix. Moreover, it shows this kind of attachment to an absolutism with the effort to apply the kind of language of moral absolutes to an area in energy policy where more consequentialist considerations are more appropriate.
I just wanted to put this on the record as a way of thinking about what kinds of differences exist between parties on environmental policy because it is often convenient for us to paint with a broad brush to say that this group of political actors care and this group of political actors do not care. We can have better conversations and more substantive understandings of each other if we try to look behind that to say what is motivating different political actors to come to different conclusions.
Just to summarize, Bill S-5 is a bit of an omnibus bill that covers various kinds of environmental policy changes. It is a bill that most parties in the House support, although there are some with different quibbles. We have a shared concern in the House for the environment and a shared recognition that environmental policy has an impact on human life and human well-being. Moreover, we see the environment as a good in and of itself and not just as a means to other goods. Also, we make those environmental policy considerations through a more consequentialist moral framework, rather than an absolute one, which is more appropriate for the particulars in this case.
1449 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:33:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, sometimes we have people in the House casting swine before pearls.
The government's approach to environmental policy is to say that increasing taxes on Canadians is going to solve the problem. I think we should look at the consequence of that approach to see if it is working. Again, I recommended looking at consequence as a means of evaluating the value of a policy.
The government has not met any of its environmental targets. People are paying more. Canadians are struggling with affordability, and the government is failing to meet its environmental objectives. The only case where we have seen improvements in its environmental performance was when it tanked the economy during COVID. We need a strategy that can improve the environment while having a strong economy, and the government has not found that approach.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:34:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, because he touched on the fact that all the parties here have had sometimes similar and sometimes different positions on the environment. When we worked on Bill S-5, the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois all had more or less similar amendments because we relied on experts from all the environmental groups. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against the suggestions we put forward based on the input of environmental groups. We feel that it was the industry's ideas that prevailed. Yes, it is important to listen to the industry because it has experts, but it is also important to have representatives from environmental groups who are also experts.
Was too much emphasis put on the industry's agenda in our analysis of Bill S-5?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
