44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 29, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this Senate bill.
First, I would just like to point out that the Conservative member who spoke earlier talked about how much the Conservatives support the bill. Of course, they could really show that support by ensuring that it receives speedy passage to move on to the next stage, instead of prolonging debate on the matter.
Canada's built environment is a significant contributor to GHG emissions, with more than 25% of GHGs coming from the construction, use and maintenance of residential, commercial and institutional buildings. The embodied carbon is the GHG emission arising from the manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and disposal of building materials from building construction. It is responsible for 10% of all energy-related emissions.
In 2019, the World Green Building Council called for a 40% reduction in embodied carbon by 2030. To ensure that Canada meets its GHG reduction commitments, both energy use and carbon emissions need to be reduced simultaneously. This bill puts into law that, for most federal construction, GHG reduction must be a part of the planning process. It is the smart thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. Currently, this is only an internal federal policy.
Wood is one of the best materials for reducing the carbon footprint in buildings. The low embodied carbon of wood products stems from the fact that the manufacturing process is not energy-intensive, because it relies predominantly on electricity and uses long-lasting forest products that have sequestered carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Great advances have been made in tall wood construction. It is now possible to build more buildings in a safe, ecologically sensitive way than in past construction. These new technologies offer an obvious opportunity to increase the use of wood in building and thus support the forest sector in Canada, which has been beset by difficulties caused by American tariffs through the softwood lumber dispute, the pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia, catastrophic forest fires and reduced fibre supply because of past harvests.
As the largest producer in Canada, the federal government could give this sector a much-needed boost by using this cutting-edge technology at home. If passed, this bill would require the Department of Public Works to consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits when developing requirements for the construction, maintenance and repair of federal buildings.
In 2009, B.C. passed the Wood First Act, which aims to “facilitate a culture of wood by requiring the use of wood as the primary building material in all new provincially funded buildings”. In 2013, Quebec adopted the Wood Charter, which requires all builders working on projects financed in whole or in part by the provincial government to consider wood in their construction plans; it also requires project managers to prove that they have calculated the greenhouse gas emissions of wood versus other materials in the pre-project stage.
Different versions of this private member's bill were introduced in past Parliaments, and they were supported by the NDP. Early versions of the bill explicitly asked the minister to consider using wood. However, that text was amended in the 42nd Parliament to direct the minister to consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits instead; it may also allow the use of wood or any other thing, including a material, product or sustainable resource that achieves such benefits.
That bill, Bill C-354 passed in the House but died in the Senate at the end of that Parliament. It was introduced as a Senate bill in this Parliament. This version of the private member's bill is inspired by new developments in wood construction technology. Large buildings constructed with mass timber can be built quickly. They are also cost-competitive, and they meet fire safety requirements.
Advances in wood construction technology have demonstrated that large buildings and other infrastructures can be built with wood. Recently, the University of British Columbia constructed the Brock Commons student residence; it is the world's tallest wood building, at 18 storeys. Toronto's George Brown College is currently building Limberlost Place, a 10-storey mass timber structure, at its Waterfront Campus; this will be the first institutional building of its kind in Ontario.
In 2014, the Cree community of Mistissini, Quebec, opened the Mistissini Bridge, a 160-metre-long bridge with semicontinuous arches made of glue-laminated wood beams. It is one of the largest wooden structures in Canada, and it won two national awards at the 2016 Canadian Consulting Engineering Awards.
Canadian companies lead the mass timber sector in North America, with production plants in B.C., Ontario and Quebec. Because wood has lower embodied carbon than most building materials do, this bill offers us the opportunity to support innovation in the forestry sector while, at the same time, helping the Government of Canada to meet its GHG emission reduction targets. This is especially the case in these difficult times, because the sector faces large duties from the U.S.
Given the developments in the technology, this idea is one that is being used more and more around the world. It makes sense to use this technology more at home. In budget 2017, the government provided Natural Resources Canada with $39.8 million over four years, starting in 2018-19, to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects.
Bringing this forward is our way to call on the government to continue to support this activity through government procurement. It is time for us to move forward. This bill has been around and through the block a number of times. I repeat, as I stated at the beginning of my speech, that if the Conservatives say they support moving forward with this bill, then they should show it with actions and stop the delaying tactics. Let us get on with it, get it done, support the industry and do what is good for the environment. That is the path forward.
1020 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:01:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and Quebec's territory.
On April 13, 2022, parliamentarians belonging to all political parties represented in the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion affirming the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in matters of the environment. The elected officials of Quebec unanimously oppose “any intervention by the federal government in matters of the environment on Quebec territory”. The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position and strongly advocates for the interests and values of Quebec in the federal political arena.
That said, in the existing legal framework, the federal government has certain environmental protection responsibilities. Bill S‑5 is part of that effort. Unfortunately, what is lacking are ambitions to guide action on this important file that is environmental protection.
What is even more concerning is the fact that environmental protection, which has been undermined for some time, requires us to make up for measures that should have been implemented a long time ago. This was discussed in our last debate when my colleague from Repentigny called for prevention to be a fundamental pillar of this law.
Quebec's Environment Quality Act, adopted in 1978, underwent a major reform in 2017. The act seeks to protect the environment and safeguard the species inhabiting it. Quebec law prohibits the deterioration of the quality of the environment or the emission of pollutants or contaminants.
In addition to our Civil Code, the following laws are also related to environmental protection in Quebec and its support: the Sustainable Development Act, the Act to affirm the collective nature of water resources and to promote better governance of water and associated environments, the Natural Heritage Conservation Act and the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife.
I had the honour of working on improving the first Quebec law on sustainable development introduced in 2004 at the National Assembly of Quebec and adopted in 2006. I remember the discussions we had about principles related to the foundation of sustainable development, including the precautionary principle. I will come back to that.
Obviously, I need to seek unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague from Repentigny.
381 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:36:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, since it is up to a minister who has a very shaky track record, it is important that I discuss that. However, I will attempt to put all those statements in context, because, of course, we think about the minister and what he has done. It is a new generation of Greenpeace that he was part of. Patrick Moore has completely looked at that group and said the only thing green about it is the money it has brought in, and that comes because of the antics of the group. Therefore, it is important that previous Greenpeace people and previous people who were involved in the environment look and advocate for a common-sense management of our environment, where we would be 180 degrees opposite to the eco-activists who are now influencing all left-wing parties here in Canada. That is the point I had wanted to make on that particular issue.
When I was on the environment committee and, now, as a member of the natural resources committee, I have talked about the need to recognize the contribution that Canada can make to the world. Europe is begging Canada to help stabilize its energy needs. For Europe, the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia has solidified the need to have stable energy partners. Further to that, people in many countries in Europe are seeing the light, evaluating their previous policies and pivoting to return to traditional energy resources. Germany is bringing coal plants back online to meet its energy demands. The Netherlands has temporarily shut down wind farms because of their impact on migratory birds. They are doing a few other things that are hurting their farmers; this, I am sure, is something that we could speak about in another debate.
Last summer, I attended the OSCE meetings in Birmingham, England. We were there to discuss food security, energy security and security in Europe. Certainly, the energy security topic was hotly debated. The Canadian government delegation was led by ideology. I had the privilege of working with other European parliamentarians to push back on this ideological rush to unreliable energy sources at a time when our allies need to be assured that we have stable energy.
Ideology corrupts science. One does not start with an ideological position, look for markers that can be manipulated to support one's position and then proclaim that the science is settled. That is not what science is all about. However, the minister and his people seem to do that just about every time they develop a plan, regulation or new environmental bill.
Domestically, the government seems to believe that its greenhouse gas targets will be met primarily through the three items of a rapid expansion of EVs, a reduction in fertilizer use and the eventual phasing out of Canada's oil sands. These beliefs are so far out of touch. Sadly, there will be major repercussions for Canada and the world because of these short-sighted policies.
As we move forward as a nation, we should ensure that every action we take is measured. I have spoken many times about this at environment and natural resources committees. Perhaps because of my 34 years as a math and physics teacher, I believe that whatever technology we consider, we should measure the impact from the first shovel we need to dig it up to the last shovel we need to cover it up.
EVs require much more energy to produce than ICE vehicles. There are environmental impacts from rare-earth mineral excavation and chemical processing for any electrical components. Even revamped electrical grids will never be fail-safe. Windmills require hydrocarbons for both manufacturing and maintenance. Used solar panels will need to be disposed of properly. Fortunately, as Canadians, we have the know-how to meet the challenges that we face.
We should be looking for solutions that are tailored to the uniqueness of the communities in which we live. This means we need to celebrate our strengths rather than exaggerate our differences. It means recognizing indigenous leaders who want a future for their young people in a resource rich country and do not want to be dictated to once again by a government that claims to know best. This eco-colonialism is something we have to be cautious of, because we are looking at a government that says as long as we do things its way, it can help us out. That is one of the issues that I believe are so critical.
When I speak to leaders in our indigenous communities, I hear that they are looking for opportunities for their young people and their communities. When they hear governments say they do not want things done that way or that they are shutting things down because they have better jobs for people, that is where the frustration comes in.
It also means caring for each other, giving workers the best opportunities to grow and succeed and fulfilling our role as responsible energy suppliers on the global stage. That is one of the concerns I have. As I said in an article:
When I was first campaigning in 2008, a local energy worker who had worked all around the world told me how proud we should be of Canada’s energy sector and its environmental record. He stated that the only ones close were the Australians, and that was only because they were aggressively implementing Canadian state-of-the-art technology.
The quest for excellence is still part of the Canadian oil and gas industry’s DNA, but there have been hurdles, perhaps well intended, that have lessened the industry’s ability to remain on the leading edge. Limiting the access of oil and gas to world markets through federal legislation, denigrating the industry at international fora, and advocating against investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector have had consequences.
What the industry needs is certainty. A strong, supportive government is not what international players see. What they see are investors seeking opportunities elsewhere. With the energy disaster that is taking place in Europe, our potential energy customers see confusion from this government; we have a world-class product to sell, but leave the heavy lifting to others.
The Canadian industry needs an updated and modern CEPA. The inclusion of the NDP amendment that encroached on provincial jurisdiction was opposed at committee by the Liberals, but at the last minute, they flipped-flopped to support it, leaving this bill open to more jurisdictional court battles and uncertainty.
The history of the environment minister is a case in point of activism and the damage that is done because the Liberals just do not care who they hurt. Most Canadians are aware of the minister scaling structures to get arrested to make his point, but they probably do not know that he also trespassed on the modest home of then premier Ralph Klein, and in doing so dramatically upset Ralph's wife Colleen, whom I knew personally. He has no remorse and still to this day is proud of his actions, and the Prime Minister rewards his reckless criminal behaviour while Liberal members, along with their NDP coalition partner and the opportunistic Bloc members, just sit back and smile. I would have thought that a regional party like the Bloc would have voted against further provincial encroachment, but they voted in lockstep with the Liberal-NDP coalition.
Alberta has always had pristine water, fresh air and fertile soil. We produce the cleanest oil and natural gas in the world. That is why the Lougheed government embarked on a program to get natural gas to every rural resident possible. That could happen for all of this country if we would think our way through this problem.
Alberta, through the oil sands, has financed and carried this country through some tough times. In fact, the oil and gas sector is the feedstock for the products that will be covered under CEPA, as well as the feedstock for every other type of energy source that this world needs. However, as I mentioned before, the minister and the government do not care who they hurt or how they damage industries or interprovincial relationships.
The last-minute support of the NDP amendment, among the other reasons I have outlined, is why I will not be supporting this bill.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for the purpose of modifying clause 9 with the view to safeguard provincial jurisdiction with respect to regulating mining tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing.
1494 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 9:48:26 p.m.
- Watch
Well she did, Madam Chair. All the Conservatives came out with a platform, before the last election, and it said they would impose a price on pollution, albeit it was slightly different from ours. It was more of an Air Miles-type plan where one got points and got to pick prizes afterwards, but the Conservatives ran on the basic fundamental principle of it. That member did.
Conservatives knocked on doors, 338 of them, trying to sell that to Canadians. I think they do owe an explanation to Canadians as to why they have now flip-flopped on that. That is what the minister was trying to highlight earlier in her responses.
What I really want to talk about is what this budget is doing, in terms of setting a course into the future, in terms of laying the groundwork for the future economies. Just about every political party in this House gets it, except the Conservatives, that the future success of our economy or any economy in this world for that matter, in the foreseeable future, is going to be around clean technology.
We know that clean technology is expected to triple by 2030. We have the opportunity now to be at the forefront of that, not just so that we could do the environmentally responsible thing, but we could benefit from the economics of it, being at the forefront of it and exporting that technology as we develop it here in Canada.
That is why I am very pleased to see that this budget had a number of measures in it to ensure that we have the strong foundation we need, that we have a safe, smart and competitive place to do business, that we have opportunities ahead, and that we do recognize that there are some challenges around it and we suggest ways to tackle those challenges. That is what I really want to talk about this evening, and what I would like to ask the minister about when I get to my questions.
We talk about a strong foundation for providing that economy of the future. What does that mean? It means ensuring that we encourage investment in clean technology, ensuring that we get access to those critical minerals and making zero-emissions vehicles more affordable, like this budget is doing. That means tackling public transit in a way that is meaningful and genuinely impacts the lives of Canadians, that means building housing and encouraging development around transit systems and transit routes, all in the interest of looking towards opportunities to genuinely create the foundation that we need in order to allow this new and future economy to flourish here in Canada. That is what we are seeing, by laying that groundwork and establishing that foundation.
However to do that, to attract that business, we need to ensure that, as I indicated, we have a safe, smart and competitive place to do business here in Canada. One of the underpinnings of that is a stable democracy, one that has the social supports, one that has supports for individuals who, for some reason, become unemployed or need health care or dental care. People want to establish businesses in areas that have those strong social supports.
Corporations are changing. They are not like what they were during the Industrial Revolution or even in the following 50, 75 or 100 years. They are looking for places to do business that have clean energy sources. I am immediately reminded of Umicore. The Prime Minister came to Queen's University last summer, with our provincial counterparts, with some of my Conservative colleagues from neighbouring ridings of Kingston and the Islands to announce Umicore coming to our region in Loyalist Township, just outside of my riding of Kingston and the Islands.
The one takeaway for me on that was when the president of Umicore was asked why he chose Ontario, when he had all these other places in North America that he could have decided on. Why Ontario? He said that they were building a sustainable product. They want to know that what goes into that product is sustainable. He said that there is clean energy here, and they use a lot of energy.
Finally, we are seeing this shift in the corporate world where businesses are now taking on this responsibility to be more environmentally sustainable where perhaps for decades before we never really saw that. I give credit especially to the former Liberal government in Ontario that phased out the burning of coal in Ontario to make electricity. It established and built renewable energy projects like windmills on Wolfe Island, one of the two islands in Kingston and the Islands. It was hugely contested at the time. Both sides of the debate were locking heads repeatedly for years, but the provincial government at the time pushed through and said it was the right thing to do and that Ontario needed to do it. As a result, Ontario now has one of the cleanest grids in North America, and that is why Umicore said it wanted to establish in Ontario.
This is what we talk about when we talk about establishing the right places to do business. It is by making sure that we have put the infrastructure in place, by making sure we have those social supports and a strong democracy, and by ensuring we have competitive corporate tax rates. That is what we need to do.
When we look ahead, we talk about the fact that clean tech and clean energy are expected to triple globally by 2030. We have an opportunity here to be at the forefront of this, and I genuinely believe that some of the measures this government has put in place over the years, and in particular what we have been seeing in this budget and the last one, really highlight how we are putting ourselves in that competitive position to outperform some of our partners.
However, there are some challenges, and I know it is responsible that in the budget the government is discussing some of those challenges, so that is what I would like to ask the minister about: how we are going to overcome some of those challenges.
In particular, there are two things that come to mind. One is that we must build the framework, including the infrastructure, for the long-term investments. That is going to be a big challenge. That is something we need to work with our provincial counterparts on. One of the other challenges is the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act's posing, perhaps, problems in terms of our ability to be competitive.
My questions to the minister will really focus on how we properly position ourselves to be at the forefront of that, given the fact that we do have some of these challenges before us. I would start with that question.
1146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
