44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 29, 2023 11:00AM
- May/29/23 12:51:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, my answer is really simple: Yes. Unfortunately, yes.
First of all, the hon. member said that amendment changed nothing. So why did he vote for it if it changed nothing? I do not understand why. The issue is what we have seen in Alberta following the tragedy there. Well, everything was said before. If I understand correctly what my colleague said, it changes nothing, and so if it changes nothing why did they vote for it?
We see, unfortunately, an attack on the jurisdictional procedure. Some people will say no, some people will say yes, and that is the problem. We are going to start another fight for that, and who do we think will win that? It will be the lawyers. I have nothing against them, but, yes, for sure, we would start a new fight with that, which is the last thing we need when we talk about climate change, environmental issues and developing our full potential.
Yes, we will vote against the bill, because it is not a minor agreement. We were surprised to see the flip-flop of the Liberals with the support of the NDP, Bloc, Greens and independents.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:47:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, NDP-Liberal tax hikes make life cost more for struggling Canadians. The first carbon tax makes everything more expensive, and it fuels inflation, so most Canadians are paying more than they will ever get back. The second carbon tax will add over $1,100 more per household, and there is no fake rebate scheme for that one.
Combined, that is almost $4,000 in new taxes per Alberta family, and it hurts low-income Canadians the most. When will the costly coalition axe the carbon taxes so Canadians can afford gas, groceries and home heating?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:55:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not seem to realize that there is a cost to climate change.
There was a $9-billion impact to the Canadian economy, in B.C. in particular, from the fires, drought and floods. Six hundred people died under the heat dome, and there was a $4-billion impact from hurricane Fiona. Fires are raging in Nova Scotia and northern Alberta.
What is it going to take for the Conservatives to stop the denial and take climate change seriously?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 3:15:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are currently 179 wildfires burning in Canada, 68 of which are out of control. Those fires are in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Over 20,000 people have been evacuated from their communities, and nearly a million hectares of forest have been lost to these fires. Frankly, this season has begun weeks ahead of what we would normally anticipate. These fires are occurring at unprecedented levels.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:59:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have seconded the motion from the member for Kingston and the Islands just a moment ago. It was a good point.
As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health and the member of Parliament for Milton, I am proud to rise to speak on Bill S-5. It is important to take some time to speak to the work that our government has done on modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is our cornerstone environmental legislation.
In a nutshell, CEPA recognizes a right to a healthy environment, as provided under CEPA. It imposes a duty on the government to protect the right and uphold related principles such as environmental justice. It also requires ministers to develop an implementation framework within two years, and to conduct research to support the protection of the right.
It also is expected to support strong environmental and health standards now and into the future, robust engagement, new research and action to protect populations that are particularly vulnerable to environmental health risks.
On that topic, I think we would be remiss not to recognize that recently in Alberta, there have been tailings ponds leakages into the Athabasca River and various other tributaries that went unreported to communities that were affected downstream. This is exactly the type of activity that we need to prevent and legislate into law as unacceptable, to ensure that we are protecting people from these toxic substances.
In the previous speech, there were some numbers thrown around and I would just like to put into modern context a few of those numbers, if I could. I heard the member opposite refer to 500,000 pounds of material that would need to be extracted to build one car battery.
I completely accept that it requires mining to build a modern car battery. They are up to 1,000 pounds and they are certainly intensive when it comes to mining. That does not go without saying. To put that into context, though, 500,000 pounds is about 226,000 kilograms. That would equate to about 10 years of fuel, if one were to convert that to gasoline. An average car would use about 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms of gasoline every year. Do the math and, unless I have done it completely improperly, I think that equates.
What does it take to get gasoline? That is something that we did not necessarily have the opportunity to measure or consider.
In the context of the oil sands, that requires, every single time some fuel is removed through the process, four tonnes of sand and four barrels of fresh water just to make one barrel of synthetic oil. I will say that again: four tonnes of sand need to be excavated and then four barrels of fresh water need to be used and most of that is then stored in a tailings pond. It is important to recognize that those tailings ponds were never meant to be long-term solutions for that toxic substrate of the process, but they continue to be used in that form and fashion.
What do we get out of one barrel of synthetic oil? One would get 42 gallons of gasoline. That is 160 litres of fuel.
What did that require? It required four tonnes of sand to be removed. Four tonnes of sand is 4,000 kilograms of sand. We are now on a similar metric to what the member opposite was saying needed to be excavated to build one car battery, which would obviously be good for many trips.
I am fortunate enough to drive an electric car and I can say that I have driven 30,000 kilometres in the last year in that electric car without having to use any gasoline.
There is no question that the carbon footprint of one of these electric vehicles is higher on the first day that one drives it compared to an internal combustion engine, but the point is that it does not require any gasoline. If one compares the amount of sand that needs to be removed from the ground in order to produce one litre of gasoline to how much is required to produce a car battery, one realizes that, yes, cars require a lot of mining. We all know that. That is something we should know.
However, we also have to take into consideration how many acres and acres of boreal forest are necessary to clear for oil sands activity and how much water it requires in order to refine that bitumen down to a usable product.
Moving on from the topic of electric car batteries and gasoline, I would like to talk about how this bill, Bill S-5, strengthens the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances that are found in our environment through industry.
The bill would require an integrated plan of chemicals management priorities, with timelines and annual reporting. It would implement a new regime for toxic substances of highest risk.
It would create a watch-list for substances of potential concern, and consultation on new living organisms that would allow the public to request assessments, and ministers would have to address risks using the best balanced and best placed act.
It is really important to recognize that this is creating a framework for the future that would evolve as technology evolves and as new technologies are implemented and new forms of mining are implemented in our mining sector to go after all of the critical minerals that new technologies would require. Bill S-5 would evolve with it.
This bill would also confirm a focus on assessment of real-life exposures, supporting the shift to safer chemicals, replacing and reducing reliance on animal testing, increased openness, transparency and accountability in decision-making. It would also include amendments that affect all of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, including information gathering, research authorities, reporting on indigenous reconciliation and other confidential business information.
I would like to take a moment to reflect on something a little more personal. When my father's family first came to Canada from Holland, they moved to southwestern Ontario and engaged in agriculture. One of my father's first jobs was picking tobacco around the Tillsonburg area, which was a very common practice. Thankfully, the tobacco industry has fewer customers these days and there are fewer people farming tobacco.
It was not actually the tobacco plant that led to harm to my family so much as the product that was sprayed on those tobacco plants, Roundup is a very common insecticide that is still, unfortunately, used in many agricultural applications these days. It is a herbicide. I thank the member opposite. I do not know everything about this, so I am glad that we are working in a place that allows for us to collaborate a little.
Whatever the pest, Roundup was attempting to prevent the infestation of those tobacco plants. It also causes neurological degenerative diseases, like Parkinson's, which my dad suffers from, I should say lives with these days. He does not like to say that we suffer from diseases. It is very well documented that Roundup causes neurological, degenerative disorders like Parkinson's. My dad has been tested for the type of Parkinson's that he has, and indeed it is associated with a high exposure to herbicides, as my colleague point out. Roundup is in that category.
These chemicals that we have used throughout—
An hon. member: Glyphosate. Roundup is a trade name.
Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Roundup is a trade name, okay. Members can tell I did not grow up on a farm. I picked apples every once in a while. My apple farmer uncle, Gerry, who is now deceased, used to call me “the city boy” when I would come to the farm and pick apples. I guess he was right. Thanks for confirming my wise old Uncle Gerry's assertion that I was a city boy.
Glyphosate caused harm to my family. I will say that my dad has taken on his fight with Parkinson's with quite a lot of consternation. He is a really remarkable guy for managing his disease the way that he has. I do not think it is necessary for people to be exposed to things like that. I would hate to know what types of disorders and diseases tailings ponds and other toxic industrial applications might prove to impact folks with. I hope that we do not see more spillage, because that certainly was devastating for those communities that surrounded that.
Moving on, Bill S-5, known as CEPA, was introduced on February 9, 2022, more than a year ago. Since then, Senate committees and the House of Commons environmental committee have received 105 written briefs. If I compare that to how many briefs we receive at the health committee for similar pieces of legislation, I would say that is a lot. It is probably triple what we received for the most recent bill studying children's health. They have spent, collectively, over 50 hours studying that bill, with a lot of great input from experts, industry leaders and a tremendous number of witnesses at those committee hearings.
They have received over 80 witnesses' oral testimonies, and they have debated over 300 amendments tabled. This is one of the most debated pieces of legislation that we have seen in this House and through the Senate over the last couple of years. This excludes any of those subamendments because, of course, there have been considerable subamendments as well.
I think all members of this House can agree that there has been extensive debate around this bill during second reading in the House of Commons. This bill actually received more debate time than the budget implementation act would usually receive. I do believe we can all agree that it has had its time here to see the light of day.
Prior to those recent amendments, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, CEPA had not been updated in over two decades. Much has happened over the last two decades. A lot of new technologies have come to the fore and there are plenty of new chemicals to account for. We need to ensure they are not having a negative impact on people's health.
During this time, over the last two decades, we have certainly developed new technologies and we have deepened our understanding of toxic substances. Across the board, we are getting better at science, especially climate science. Our environmental legislation needs to reflect this important progress.
It has been said a number of times throughout debate today that this bill is not one that is focused on climate change; it is focused on toxic substances in our environment. I think that is very true. However, at the same time, we need to consider the impact of many of the industries that directly increase climate change and have a negative impact on climate change and warming, as well as the dryness of our climate currently and the incidents of wildfires and other horrendous natural disasters. They are all related, and we need a 360-degree view and a science-guided, evidence-first approach to preventing harm when it comes to the technologies that we are adapting to and all of the new methods by which we are going to get enough energy for transportation and for all the other things, like heating our homes, that we rely on. It is so important that our legislation advances forward with the technology and with all those new developments.
For the first time ever, CEPA recognizes the right to a healthy environment for Canadians. To ensure this right is meaningful and taken into account when decisions are made under CEPA, this bill includes a number of requirements.
For instance, it requires that the government must develop, within two years, an implementation framework describing how this right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of the act. This framework would explain, among other things, how principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity would be considered under CEPA. The framework would elaborate on principles such as environmental justice, meaning avoiding adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, and issues of non-regression for continuous improvement of environmental protection.
CEPA, as it is, is a very technical and lengthy bill. We have heard a lot of testimony from expert witnesses from all backgrounds. I think it is extremely thorough and I am glad it is one that most members in this House seem to support. In debate, we have heard from all parties and it seems like the majority of members do support this bill.
That said, we have also heard from constituents via email. I know I have. I have received some from fantastic, environmentally focused organizations in my riding.
One I want to point out is Sustainable Milton. Sustainable Milton is a group of concerned citizens who regularly take action to advocate for and directly clean up our environment. They are a wonderful group of people, and I want to give them a shout-out. They have led town cleanups in our community. I want to acknowledge that litter is a visual concern, for the most part. In our environment, it is annoying to see litter, but it is nothing compared to toxic substances that are going to have a deleterious impact on our health. However, Sustainable Milton has done a really great job leading these litter cleanups. I am grateful to have taken part in a couple, and I want to thank all of the councillors who led their own cleanups as well with the stewardship of Sustainable Milton.
I would also like to reference the Halton Environmental Network, which was actually cataloguing a lot of that litter and looking into whether some of it had any deleterious impacts on waterways and tributaries. Milton is a bit landlocked, but it has quite a lot of watershed down to the Lake Ontario area and the basin around there.
What we put into our environment matters. It has an impact on habitat, and it has an impact on the water we drink. I want to thank the Halton Environmental Network and Sustainable Milton for their stewardship and action on environmentally focused activities in Milton. I also want to thank them for their emails.
I have received dozens of emails from constituents asking our government to position Canada as a global leader in developing more non-invasive methods, non-animal methods and methods that are less harmful to our health and to the health of animals.
We know that we are connected to our environment, not just through the air that we breathe and the water that we drink, but also through the food chain. A lot of our food is produced locally. Last week, I had the chance to visit Monaghan Mushrooms, a farm in my riding that produces fully three-quarters of the local mushrooms that our community consumes. If someone had a mushroom omelette in the last couple of weeks, I would encourage them to have a look at the label. I would bet the mushrooms were produced in Milton, Ontario. Those are all the button and portobello mushrooms. Then there is also another farm in Milton that produces all the specialty mushrooms. I learned a lot about fungus last week.
What I know is that those mushrooms, as they are being produced, drink the same tap water we do. They require soil, which is produced locally, actually through manure from Woodbine Racetrack. They actually provide a service to Woodbine Racetrack, one of the largest horse-racing facilities in Canada. They take all of the horse manure and put it directly into a compost mix, and that compost is then used to produce mushrooms.
Why am I going on about horse manure and mushrooms? It is because the horses that race at Mohawk racetrack in Milton drink the water from the surrounding area, and if they are like the animals in my life, they sometimes just drink from puddles. They eat grasses and locally produced vegetation, and then their excrement leads to something that is used to produce the food that we consume on a daily basis.
We are all connected through the water that we drink, the air that we breathe and the food that we consume. It is so important to make sure that the toxic chemicals that might exist in only a very small percentage in things like grasses, table water or any of a variety of things do not biomagnify all the way up into something that we consume on a regular basis and then have a deleterious impact on our health.
At committee, members heard from Dr. Chandrasekera, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods, an international expert in this field, who presented technological innovations that have been made in producing viable alternatives to animals for testing. Health Canada is working to address the issue of animal testing outside of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Our government has also passed a motion that would see the requirement to report on the operation of the act with respect to indigenous peoples to be done annually, rather than just once every five years. That revised requirement ensures consistent annual reporting on all issues raised by indigenous groups in relation to this act. These motions will improve transparency and ensure that the government remains accountable.
We know that climate change is a real threat that affects all Canadians, and now more than ever we must have strong environmental protections to protect our health from toxic substances that enter our natural environment. Our country has an opportunity to be a leader in climate policy, and passing an updated, strengthened CEPA is absolutely vital to this.
In closing, I would like to say that in previous speeches today I have heard quite a lot of talk about tailings ponds and whether this is a bill related to climate change. I think I have touched on how it is related to climate change but possibly in more of a tangential way. Climate change is real. I know this is not something that is universally held as a conviction in this House. Unfortunately, some people like to talk about historical accounts as to how much ice was above certain towns or cities in Canada. That probably would not be true if one were to consult a historian or a paleoclimatologist.
However, the fact remains that we have an obligation as a country, as a government, to stand up for the health and wellness of Canadians, and that includes animals and vegetation, because those products do biomagnify into our biology as well.
3141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:24:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member for Milton and his work on the health file.
Health Canada has found that air pollution is a factor in 15,300 premature deaths and millions of respiratory issues every year in Canada, yet this bill has nothing in it about air quality standards. We need to have enforceable air quality standards in Canada, but this bill does not mention it at all. The air flows between provinces. We see that with the smoke coming out of Alberta.
Why did the government leave air quality completely out of this bill and vote down proposed amendments to fix this?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:16:51 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak in this place once again. The competition was fierce, but I know that cooler heads have prevailed, and I want to thank everybody who voted to allow me to continue to speak and be recognized by the Speaker. It is not often that it happens that I am asked to continue to speak.
I want to jump into the debate around Bill S-5. It is a bill that has been before the House before and is now coming back after being at committee. This is a bill around toxic substances and how Canada deals with things that enter into our environment, such as commercial products and these kinds of things. I want to start by talking about Alberta's record on a clean environment and the Conservatives' record on tackling some of these issues that have appeared in our history. We heard, and I have spoken about this before, how Conservatives tend to tackle problems as kind of a one-off issue, particularly around acid rain. Conservatives tackled it as a global phenomenon and a global problem, and it is something that I am proud to say that Conservatives did.
Another thing that Alberta tackled and kind of led the country and the world on is the disposal of PCBs. I do not know if members know this, but Alberta leads the world in the disposal of PCBs. There is a waste treatment plant in my riding, near Swan Hills, Alberta and it has mastered the disposal of PCBs. In fact, today, in Alberta, we are PCB-free. They have all been disposed of and dealt with. This is something I am proud of, but I know that many other parts of the country have not dealt with PCBs. In fact, there are warehouses full of PCBs, because it has been cheaper to just house them for the last 50 years, or 30 years, rather than dispose of them.
Alberta has kind of led the way in the disposal of PCBs, and I am excited to say that it was a Conservative initiative. Alberta stands ready. The disposal plant still exists, although, because there are no more PCBs in Alberta, it is lacking business. However, other provinces are welcome to ship their PCBs to Alberta for us to dispose of them, because we know how to do it. We have done it for well over the last 30 years and stand ready to do it for other provinces. However, it is sometimes cheaper to just continue to store them than to ship them across the country, so provinces can just defer the cost of disposal by continuing to store them. The issue of PCBs and PCB disposal is something that I am proud of as an Albertan. Albertans, and particularly the town of Swan Hills, have done an amazing job of figuring that out.
Another area where Alberta has led the way is in used tire recycling. Used tires have been a challenge for the western world since the introduction of the automobile. In Legal, Alberta there is a tire recycling facility. All the tires in Alberta are taxed with a levy on the day they are sold, and that goes into tire recycling. Those tires that are recycled are built into products that we use in our everyday lives. I do not know if members have ever been to a playground that has rubber matting underneath the playground—
Mr. Frank Caputo: It is called your backyard.
Mr. Arnold Viersen: Thanks, Caputo.
597 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:21:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I was talking about how Alberta has tackled the used tire problem. Just outside of my riding, in Legal, Alberta, there is a tire recycling facility. It uses used tires to build things such as playground matting, access matting for the oil fields and curb stops. Members may have seen rubber curb stops in parking lots, where, instead of there being a concrete curb stop, it is rubber. That is being manufactured there. Fence panels are being manufactured out of used tires. The facility is finding all of these innovative ways to make used tires into other products that we can use in our everyday lives. That was championed and organized in Alberta about 30 years ago, and I am fairly excited about that as well.
The other initiative that I am surprised to discover does not exist in other parts of the country is the Alberta ditch cleanup program, involving charitable organizations. My daughter has participated in it as part of a fundraiser for her school. The 4-H programs across Alberta work on this as well. The Alberta government donates to charity the cost of the labour that is put into cleaning up the ditches. Teams go out, gather all of the garbage from ditches, put it in orange plastic bags and set the bags at the side of the road to be picked up. This is a program that happens every spring after the snow melts. It has made Alberta a clean and tidy place. All the garbage in ditches gets cleaned up, and I am excited about that. What I was surprised to find is that other provinces do not have these kinds of programs. I was surprised that ditches are not necessarily cleaned up in other parts of the country.
The other thing that I was surprised to find out Ottawa does not have, for example, is the drink container recycling program that Alberta has. For my entire life, there has been a drink container recycling program. When I was a teenager, something that supplemented my income was collecting bottles and cans. I know that many a time in high school, there were fundraisers through bottle drives. We would collect used drink containers and bring them back to get the deposit money. Recycling drink containers to keep them out of the landfill and the environment has been in place in Alberta for a very long time. I was surprised that other parts of the country do not have the same program. I know the drink container program in Alberta has been very successful. It has broad support. It is kind of a circular economy idea and seems to work fairly well.
I also want to note that Edmonton has kind of led the way in terms of waste disposal. It creates power from all of the garbage that comes out of Edmonton. It grinds up the waste, separates out the metals, recycles the metals and makes power out of the rest of the garbage. It has a composting division as well. Edmonton has been recognized around the world as one of the leaders in waste disposal. These are some of the programs and projects that have happened in Alberta that I am really excited about.
Another, more local, initiative that I am pretty excited about as well is the take-it-or-leave-it programs at a lot of Alberta's transfer stations. For those who live in the country, like I do, nobody comes by to pick up garbage, so we have to bring it to the transfer stations ourselves. At many of these places, there are what are called “take it or leave it” sections. If people have things that are not garbage per se, and they do not know what to do with them but want to dispose of them, they can place them in the take-it-or-leave-it section. It is kind of like a garage sale, except that people do not have to pay for the things. If people have items that still have value, but they do not want them anymore, they place them there, and people come and go through that.
Around Grande Prairie, there is a company that is leading the country in styrofoam recycling. I am really excited about that program as well. Styrofoam recycling is something that needs to happen, and a company in Alberta is leading the way on that.
These are all initiatives that come out of Alberta that I am really excited about. They keep our communities cleaner and ensure that our waterways stay clean. Speaking of our waterways, I do not know if members know this, but Alberta waterways are all monitored extensively. If there is a hydrocarbon spill anywhere in the province, if a hydrocarbon gets into a creek somewhere, it will set off a sensor within minutes.
I know that when an ATV tipped over, it set off sensors in the waterways. It was just a bit of fuel that spilled out of an ATV and set off the sensors. There are sensors in all of the waterways around Alberta, and they notify the Alberta government that there may have been a spill in a certain area and to investigate it. That happens within minutes.
I have experienced it. I have watched this kind of thing happen in my own neighbourhood when there has been a spill, and immediately people showed up to jump on the source of that spill and clean up the mess quickly. In one case, a fuel truck tipped over on the highway, and months were spent cleaning that up. That was caught because all the waterways in Alberta are monitored very closely for hydrocarbons. It is something that is unique to the province. I do not think that this happens in other parts of the country.
These are some of the initiatives I wanted to highlight. Albertans are taking care of the place we live, taking care of our environment and ensuring that we live in one of the most pristine parts of the country. The natural beauty of Alberta is unparalleled in the whole country.
As well, there are a variety of natural landscapes in Alberta, from far in the south where we have nearly desert conditions, to the Foothills, the Rocky Mountains, the Prairies, the boreal forest and the wetlands dotted across Alberta. These are places where we play, work and raise our families.
The other thing I wanted to note is the Alberta air monitoring that happens in my riding around the town of Peace River. There is a lot of air monitoring that happens there. I do not think the air monitoring that happens in northern Alberta is something that happens in many places across the country. These are some of the things that Alberta has put in place to ensure that we continue to live in a clean environment.
That brings us to Bill S-5. This has been a challenging bill. There was a particular amendment placed into the bill. We were generally in favour of the bill until there was an amendment placed in the bill by the NDP. It undermines provincial jurisdiction. This is around tailings ponds. It is targeting a particular disposal method, and it really feels like Alberta is being targeted with this particular amendment. It also completely undermines the idea of provincial jurisdiction.
The provinces, in many cases, are responsible for the monitoring and administration of these tailings ponds. These are not things the federal government generally gets involved in. The federal government is now placing itself in the middle and sticking its fingers where they do not belong, in provincial jurisdiction. That has been a thorn in the side of Albertans for a very long time.
Canada is happy to take the resource revenues and it is happy to take income tax revenue from the entire country, but when it comes to allowing us to do the things that we do to build wealth, create value or manage our own resources, the federal government is often sticking its fingers in and saying we cannot do something or we are not doing a good enough job or generally just disrespecting Alberta.
I imagine most Canadians are unaware that Alberta leads the way on all of those things that I talked about before, including the disposal of PCBs, our used tire program, our ditch cleanup program, our drink container recycling programs, the Edmonton waste disposal and styrofoam recycling. I can tell members what Alberta does not do for sure: It does not dump millions of litres of unprocessed sewage into the rivers and streams. That is something that definitely does not happen in Alberta. That is something we have to ensure.
Now we see this repeated trend of the Liberal government: It inserts itself into places of provincial jurisdiction. While I note that this is an NDP amendment and that the Liberals had signalled that they were opposed to that amendment initially, they voted for it at the last minute, which is why we can no longer support Bill S-5.
This is a bill that now places the federal government in competition for regulating tailings ponds. This is entirely a provincial jurisdiction. It is something that Alberta has done very well for a very long time. This is something that Alberta, in terms of keeping our waterways clean, our air clean and our soil clean, is capable of, and it is something that is not the jurisdiction of the federal government. For this amendment to be placed in there at the eleventh hour is extremely frustrating.
There are some other parts of Bill S-5 that we are excited and happy about. There is the repeal of a whole section that is no longer needed. We think that this is an important piece to pull out.
We want to ensure that assessments for new substances that may be toxic are developed within 24 months. We think it is important that there be a decision within 24 months. This allows people to get an understanding that if they propose something, they would get an answer within 24 months. That allows for some stability in this whole system.
It also removes duplicated monitoring that had been happening. There were two separate licensing bodies or monitoring bodies, and because of jurisdictional squabbles, sometimes things would either fall through the cracks or substances would be brought to the wrong authority. This bill would remove the duplicated monitoring that has happened in the past, and hopefully will streamline the process and ensure that substances that are brought forward to be assessed will be assessed properly, in a timely fashion and by the right regulator. We want to make sure of that.
There is the issue of the right to a clean environment. That comes up regularly in this bill as well. There are a whole host of things to be said about it. Conservatives believe that in the environment where we live, the air should be clean and the soil should be clean, and we should not be at risk of being in contact with toxic chemicals that might cause cancer. We should not be in contact with toxic substances. We believe we should have an environment that encourages human health, that ensures that we do not get sick from the places that we live or the air that we breathe or the water that we drink. These are basic principles.
The idea of the right to a clean environment is kind of mentioned in this bill, but it is not fleshed out in a way that is clear. This may lead to some frustrations in terms of the court action happening over these kinds of things. We hope that this right to a clean environment would, over time, be clarified to ensure that people could not take the government to court over it, saying that they feel their environment is not clean enough. That is not what we want to see happening with this right to a clean environment; we want it to ensure that the government works to ensure that wherever one lives in Canada, the air is clean, the soil is clean and the water is clean.
With that, I will wrap up my comments. I look forward to questions and comments.
2063 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:37:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the commentary from my colleague opposite.
I wish to amplify the voice of a northern Alberta indigenous leader who has accused Imperial Oil of a nine-month cover-up over a massive release of toxic oil sands tailings on land near where his band members harvest foods. That is Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. He said, “During that nine-month period, ACFN had many meetings with [the oil company], including a sit-down, face-to-face between myself and the vice-president.... We have land users in the area that hunt and fish animals that could have been exposed to these deadly toxins....”
The article states that 5.3 million litres of water escaped from a dam that was meant to capture tailings. No public notification was made about that. This bill would change those types of obligations. Almost 19% of the population in the member's constituency is indigenous. Does the member not believe that indigenous people in Peace River—Westlock deserve a healthy environment?
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:38:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I have 14 first nations and four Métis settlements in my constituency and I am well aware of the living conditions in northern Alberta. What I would say is that this bill would do nothing to rectify the situation that is happening in northern Alberta. This is a situation that continues to be under investigation, and I know that the Alberta government has shown concern about the lack of disclosure. This bill would do nothing to rectify the lack of disclosure. While the tailings pond piece was added into it, this bill would do nothing to address that issue.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:40:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, again, I want to just point out that it was not a Conservative government that gave the City of Montreal a licence to dump raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway. While the situation in northern Alberta regarding tailings ponds is fraught, there is no doubt that no government gave a licence to do that. That is unlike the current Liberal government, which gave the City of Montreal a licence to dump raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway. That is unconscionable.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:42:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague from Peace River—Westlock talked a lot about some of the innovations taking place in the province of Alberta. I know there is currently a provincial election going on there. Certainly, I am sure that he will be following the results closely, as will I.
I would ask him this: Is there anything further he would like to add in terms of how it is technology, not imposing punishment on Canadians, that is truly a way we can move forward as a country? In this way, we can better the environment but not punish the chequebooks and pocketbooks of Canadians.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:13:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, as the leader of the official opposition should know, our price on pollution goes right back into the pockets of every family in Canada. It goes back into the pockets of families here in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and across the country.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:14:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the answer, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is that in P.E.I., it will be $1,500. In Ontario, it will be $1,800, and in Alberta, it will be $2,700. That is just the first carbon tax. We just learned that the government plans to implement a second carbon tax, a so-called clean fuel standard.
How much will that tax add to the cost of a litre of gasoline when fully implemented? How much?
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:15:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, no.
The answer is that the second carbon tax will cost another $1,000 in Alberta, another $611 in Manitoba and another $850 in Newfoundland and Labrador. Where does the minister expect the people of those provinces to get that money?
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 8:12:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to participate in today's debate in committee of the whole.
Our government is well aware that we are living in difficult times, in a difficult world.
The world is going through a difficult time, and the impacts of outside forces are affecting the lives of Canadians. A global inflation cycle is making it harder to make ends meet, with snarled supply chains and geopolitical uncertainty driving up food prices and fuel costs. Climate change continues to affect our lives and endanger our communities with heat domes, atmospheric rivers, flooding and wildfires.
On that note, I would like to thank all the first responders and everyone responsible for responding to the wildfires in my home province of Alberta. I would say to the tens of thousands of Albertans who have been displaced that the federal government continues to be part of the plan and the action to get people back to their homes.
Our industries and our communities continue to adjust to the realities of a postpandemic world. Employers are attracting new workers, and businesses are welcoming back customers.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 8:13:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, we have been honest with Canadians. The short-term outlook for the global economy is not great. Financing conditions have tightened, and the negative economic impact of Vladimir Putin's illegal and unjust invasion of Ukraine continues to be felt.
Such moments present political leaders with a choice, and in this House, the choice and the contrast is clear: Conservatives believe it is in their political interest to tell Canadians that everything is broken and that they should give up hope. Their ideology tells them that government does not have any role to play in supporting Canadians through these tough times. Their political instincts tell them that they do not need concrete plans or solutions; they need only slogans and scary rhetoric. I have no doubt that today's debate will continue to be full of much of the same, yet on this side of the House, we take a different approach.
Our government believes in finding solutions to global problems. We believe that it is the government's role to help get Canadians through these tough economic times, and we believe in investing in our future and building the foundations for economic growth. Under the leadership of our government, Canadians will do together what they have always done when times are tough. They will pull together, look after each other and come out stronger. That is exactly what has been taking place.
Finally, as statistics show, there are now 907,000 more Canadian workers in the labour market than there were before the COVID-19 pandemic. More Canadians are working than ever before. Canada's unemployment rate is at 5%, near its lowest level in decades.
In just the first four months of 2023, our economy added nearly a quarter-million jobs. While inflation is still too high, and its impacts are still being felt by Canadians, we are seeing it slowly decline. It has gone from 8.1% last June down to 4.4% last month, and the Bank of Canada predicts that it will further decline to 3% this summer and just 2.5% by the end of the year. Canada's deficit is projected to be lower than it was last year, down to just 1.4% of the GDP. It will also continue to go down every year for the next five years.
We point out these basic facts, but the Conservatives, once again, revert to politics. Without an answer to these facts, they throw their hands up in the air and claim that we are saying that Canadians never had it so good. I am sure that messaging gets a lot of retweets, but they know that this is not what we are saying. What we are saying is this: With our plan, and thanks to the hard work of Canadians, we are going to emerge from these tough times better than ever.
With budget 2023, “A Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future”, our government is proposing a number of measures to improve quality of life for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. For example, by providing a one-time grocery rebate for Canadians, we are helping about 11 million people and families who need it most. We are also proposing historic investments in our health care system to ensure that Canadians across the country have access to the care they deserve. We are putting forward many measures to develop a clean economy in Canada. In addition, budget 2023 will allow Canada to maintain the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.
We are reducing public spending by more than $15 billion, without cutting the direct services and supports on which Canadians rely. We are investing where we need to and maintaining the balance of fiscal prudence.
That is not all. To succeed in today's world, it is essential that Canada be able to cope with fundamental changes in the global economy, such as the most significant economic transformation since the industrial revolution: the transition to a green economy.
Our allies around the world are moving their productions and revising their supply chains to work with democracies, not dictatorships. These changes represent a unique opportunity for Canada and for Canadian workers, and our proposals in budget 2023 allow us to capitalize on those opportunities.
Countries around the world need the expertise of Canadian workers, the ingenuity of Canadian businesses and the resources that our country has in abundance. As always, Conservatives would rather keep their heads in the sand, but we understand that, as a country, we must meet this historic moment.
We must also keep in mind that the recent passage of the United States' Inflation Reduction Act poses a major challenge to many countries, including Canada. Without swift action, the sheer scale of U.S. incentives will undermine our ability to attract the investments needed to establish Canada as a leader in the growing and highly competitive global clean economy. If Canada does not keep pace, we will be left behind as the world's democracies build the clean economy of the 21st century. If Canada is left behind, an entire generation of Canadian workers will be left behind.
We are taking action. We are making transformative investments to build Canada's net-zero economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. We will build a national electrical grid that connects Canadians from coast to coast to coast and delivers cleaner, more affordable electricity to Canadians and Canadian businesses.
We will deliver investments to put Canadian workers and Canadian businesses at the heart of essential global supply chains. We will become the reliable supplier of the goods and resources that a net-zero world will need. In our plan, our focus is on predictable investment tax credits, strategic low-cost financing and targeted investments.
Let us talk about the clean hydrogen investment tax credit. The levels of support vary between 15% and 40% of eligible project costs, with the cleanest hydrogen projects receiving the highest support. Budget 2023 also proposes new refundable tax credits for investments in clean electricity technologies, as well as machinery and equipment used to manufacture or process key technologies and extract, process or recycle key critical minerals.
We all know that CCUS, or carbon capture, utilization and storage, is an important tool for reducing emissions. In my home province of Alberta, this critical technology will create opportunities to keep our energy sector sustainable. It will protect our industry, reduce our emissions and create great careers.
That is why budget 2023 proposes to enhance the CCUS investment tax credit to support additional equipment used in this process. This entire package of tax credits, coupled with the investments our government is making in supply chains and industry, is a game changer for the Canadian economy.
We have already seen this. Thanks to our government's investments in air products, we will now build the largest net-zero hydrogen plant in the world right in my home city of Edmonton. We have also seen it with Heidelberg Materials, which is building a full-scale carbon capture, utilization and storage system at its facility in Edmonton to allow it to create carbon-neutral cement. It is the first such facility in the world. Canadian leadership is taking place in Edmonton thanks to our budget measures.
We are at a pivotal moment in our country's history, when we are choosing to scale up efforts to develop a clean economy, a green economy. I am pleased to see that budget 2023 puts forward numerous measures to make Canada a global leader in the clean economy. With our investments, everyone will win. We will help protect the environment for all Canadians. We will create great jobs for workers and unprecedented business opportunities for our businesses.
We are presenting a plan for a better future for all Canadians and an economy that works for everyone. At this challenging time in a challenging world, there is no better place to be than in Canada.
1354 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 8:25:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, just on the tax credits for clean electricity alone, businesses would get the maximum credit allowed by making sure that they have union workers on the job site and that they are paying prevailing wages. This was work done by the Alberta Federation of Labour and other building trades across the country. This is in the budget, and it makes good sense, because we know that good union jobs are good middle-class jobs. They contribute to the community, and they help grow Canada.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 8:27:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, the finance critic is an Alberta MP, so I want to ask him something very serious. There is an election going on in Alberta today, and in the campaign, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress asked about pro-Russia, pro-Putin positions taken by some UCP candidates. I would like to know what the Conservative Party thinks, and I will tell members my connection to my appearance tonight at the—
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 8:29:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I note that the Alberta MP and finance critic has refused to answer my question about Ukraine. This is an important point.
When it comes to fiscal responsibility, our AAA rating was reaffirmed by S&P after the budget was tabled.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
