- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Montcalm
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95
- Government Page
- May/29/23 1:16:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, these oil and gas projects will indeed exacerbate the climate crisis and also negatively impact peoples' health. The primary determinant of health and disease is the environment. That is quite obvious. They cannot see the forest for the trees.
When it comes to the environment, there should be no compromise. Then the government is surprised that it needs to sink huge sums into taking care of peoples' health, at least in Quebec. It is all related. How the government is choosing to invest its money does not suggest a real intention to move forward and improve the right to a healthy environment.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:14:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague followed the work that was done in committee. One thing is certain. If he wanted to be more accurate, he could have at least said that the Bloc Québécois worked really hard and that its amendment to have the federal government respect Quebec's jurisdictions was not adopted.
My colleague conveniently forgot to mention that because what he is known for in the debates that we have in the House is always putting a partisan spin on things that everyone should agree on and that should be dealt with in a non-partisan manner.
Talking about our convention when we are supposed to be talking about Bill S-5 seems rather obvious and pointless to me. I could have done the same thing, but that is his approach. That is why we are very different, and that is likely why we are not members of the same party.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:12:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: The government talks a great deal about this right to a healthy environment as if it were indeed enshrined in the Constitution. If it were really serious, this right would be constitutionalized.
When the government implements reform and revises laws only to go to committee and oppose improvements—amendments that could improve or, at the very least, guide the government's intentions and expressly reflect those intentions—we have to weigh all that.
When we look at the current government's investments in projects like Bay du Nord, I must say that there is some uncertainty about the government's real desire to improve things.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:04:51 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, environmental policy requires trade-offs between health and environmental protection and commercial and industrial interests. If the committee had kept the improvements from the Senate and voted in favour of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois or the ones from the Green Party, this part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would had translated to a much more balanced approach. The refusal to improve the act by relying on best practices will unfortunately allow commercial and industrial interests to dominate and influence decision-making in Canada.
Nevertheless, my colleague from Repentigny secured a victory for environmental protection when it comes to the precautionary principle. In the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the phrase “precautionary principle” was translated as “principe de prudence” in French. In our opinion, this flawed translation did not capture the essence of the precautionary principle, which is to refrain from doing something in case of risk, while “prudence” in French suggests the idea of taking an action and managing its risk. That is very different. The Bloc Québécois believes that recognizing the precautionary principle is essential to framing the implementation of a bill that seeks to protect the environment. The Bloc managed to rally the committee members in favour of correcting this, and we are satisfied and proud of that.
The issue is this. Under the current regime, a substance must be proven to be toxic before it can be banned. In the meantime, such substances may be posing a threat to human or environmental health. Canada is falling behind when it comes to the pace at which new substances are being assessed. If we apply the precautionary principle rather than just being prudent, then, one would hope to see a reversal of the onus of proof, which would mean that authorization would be granted only once a substance has been proven not to be harmful to human or environmental health.
It is true that the intent of Bill S‑5 is to give recourse to those who have been affected by issues involving environmental quality, environmental protection and the protection of living species. The bill seeks to make it mandatory to conduct an environmental impact assessment before carrying out any activity that could pose a high risk to the environment and to create a special access to information regime. It also seeks to regulate projects or activities that might impact wetlands or bodies of water and sets out criminal sanctions for those who break the law.
It is on that last point, the matter of crime, that we see the true scope of the right to a healthy environment.
Our political party is not fooled by the fanfare. Beyond the emotion and promises of the government about the inclusion of this right in the law, no one can deny that its scope will be very limited. If the government were serious about its desire to create a new right, it if had a little political courage, it would propose a round of constitutional negotiations with its partners in the federation to add this right to the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. It would ensure that Canadians could be certain that this right could be enforced and that there would be penalties for breaching it. The government would clearly ensure that it paves the way to greater environmental protection with robust measures carrying penalties.
In case some members are not aware, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is quasi-constitutional in scope. I mention that because this charter established the following in 2006: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.”
Canada's environmental law does not have the same scope.
Enacting laws that are merely symbolic, and therefore not really enforceable, is just wrong.
The details of this right to a healthy environment will be defined and framed by an implementation framework that will not be shared with us until two years from now. The scope of its application will be limited to this single legislative measure. The amendments to Bill S‑5, which proposed balanced, carefully considered legal mechanisms to allow recourse to the courts if that right is violated, were rejected out of hand by the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Since we are on the subject, it would be entirely justified to demand that Canada set an example in protecting the environment and human health, which are increasingly at risk because of the toxic substances at the heart of the part of the act covered by Bill S‑5. The government can decide what message it wants to send but, notwithstanding the precautionary principle, are the provisions it describes as improvements in Bill S‑5 really that much of a gain?
My colleague from Repentigny will argue that the absence of a preventive approach and the gutted Senate amendments on public participation perfectly illustrate the bill's missed opportunities.
850 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
- Nov/2/22 5:13:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my Conservative colleague shared that reminder about what led up to this bill, about how we got from Bill C‑28 to Bill S‑5, and about how so much time was wasted on what was really a totally pointless election.
As I see it, Bill S‑5 has three elements at its core. They are laid out in clause 2. These three elements are as follows: considering the exposure of vulnerable populations to toxic substances, considering the cumulative effects of toxic substances, and requiring labelling to indicate the risks posed by all products containing toxic substances.
These three elements are worded differently in the current version of this bill.
Does my colleague agree with these elements?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/7/22 2:18:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today is World Health Day and the theme this year is “Our planet, our health”.
Since the environment is one of the primary determinants of health and, unfortunately, of disease, it is more important than ever to rethink the world and our society so our children and grandchildren will have the opportunity to grow up in a healthy environment with the best possible living conditions. Talking will not get us there, only action will.
The government must decide, once and for all, to be consistent, take action, and assume its responsibilities by protecting the environment and funding health care.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those in the health sector who are doing all the heavy lifting and who can no longer wait for ongoing, significant and unconditional funding.
Health is a collective responsibility. We must decide to make it a priority.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
