So V ote

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

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

May/15/23 12:13:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to ask specifically about the amendments at report stage. The David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Environmental Defence, Breast Cancer Action Quebec and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment have all written to the government and urged members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to support these amendments at report stage. They are also urging us to pass this legislation, so I am glad we are moving forward and will have support from parties to pass it. I am wondering whether the member supports both the amendment I have tabled, to ensure “tailings ponds” is added back into the Environmental Protection Act, and also the amendments on genetically modified organisms. I would love to hear her thoughts.

126 words

All Topics

May/3/23 5:20:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her work on committee. The member put forward many amendments that were similar to New Democrat amendments. Whether it was on pollution prevention planning, timelines or genetically modified organisms, I am grateful for the work that she diligently tried to push forward in committee. We were able to strengthen some aspects of this legislation, but there are still so many gaps, and I want to ask about one of those gaps, on air quality standards. We know that the U.S. has had enforceable air quality standards for over 50 years and that over 15,000 lives are lost in Canada every year from air pollution. That is 15,000 people and families. Can the member speak to how this is a matter of life and death? These provisions are important and the government needs to do better.

147 words

May/3/23 4:39:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the amendments the member put forward at report stage, in particular, the work of Nature Canada and the criticisms to the language of interested parties when it comes to public consultation, how important it is that we have public consultation, and how problematic that particular language is.

55 words

May/3/23 4:23:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her diligent work in committee in attempting to strengthen this piece of legislation. The answer is no. If the government were serious about actually amending the pieces, especially section 22 on enforcement of the right to a healthy environment, it would have done it this time. This is a critical piece, which it did not allow us to open up. I do not think it would do to argue for any other well-known bill that the government will be putting it forward now, but we should not worry because another bill will be put forward in a few months or years. We know that it took 24 years for this iteration, this update. It has been years and years of advocacy to get to this point where we can modernize CEPA. It stretches the imagination to think that it is going to table a comprehensive “CEPA 2” bill in this Parliament. I do not believe it, but I think it is critical that we start pushing the government to do this work.

184 words

May/3/23 4:21:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his work on committee, but I have to say that I am extremely disappointed by the question. I was extremely disappointed to see Liberal members vote alongside the Conservatives to take out the only reference to tailings ponds in this entire piece of legislation. This is an issue that is impacting indigenous communities right now, and the fact that the government has decided that it does not want the words “tailings ponds” in CEPA is egregious, in my opinion. Honestly, I hope that the members in the House are listening. I hope that they will take the time to listen to indigenous communities who are impacted by the toxic pollution from tailings ponds and that they will reverse this decision and vote in favour of the report stage amendment to put the words “tailings ponds” back into CEPA.

152 words

May/3/23 4:10:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in Parliament to represent the people of Victoria. People in my community care deeply about the environment. Protecting coastal ecosystems, being able to enjoy clean lakes and clean rivers and to breathe clean air are things that people in Victoria, and across our country, care deeply about. They are things we cannot take for granted. It is why enshrining the right to a healthy environment in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is so important. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the largest piece of legislation that governs environmental protection in Canada, and it has been over 20 years since the last time it was updated. The world has changed and toxic substances are different than they were two decade ago. The bill was an opportunity to address environmental justice and to better protect the most marginalized who are impacted by pollution. This was such an important opportunity to strengthen environmental protections, and there are some great pieces of this legislation, but there were also so many missed opportunities. While Bill S-5 does not address a number of critical aspects of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that need to be updated, I am going to start by outlining what we accomplished in committee, what was accomplished in the Senate and why it is important to pass this bill. The right to a healthy environment would be recognized for the first time under federal law. We were able to strengthen the legislation in committee to ensure that there would be a duty for the government to uphold the principles of environmental justice, intergenerational equity and non-regression. The bill would also require the federal government to take the cumulative impacts of toxins and their effects on vulnerable populations into account. I want to thank Senator McCallum for her work in providing amendments for vulnerable populations. The bill would also update how we control toxic substances and dangerous chemicals. It would prioritize prohibiting the most hazardous substances, and New Democrats worked to improve transparency and accountability. The bill would not be as strong without the amendments that we fought for and passed at the environment committee, or without the work of senators like Mary Jane McCallum and others, who strengthened the bill in the Senate. Unfortunately, there were so many important amendments that the government and the Conservatives voted against. They went so far as to take out provisions in the bill so as to water down environmental protections, undermine provisions for public consultation and protection of indigenous rights, and deny Parliament the opportunity to deal with the grave concerns around enforcement. They voted against amendments on the right to a healthy environment for future generations, including voting against implementing enforceable air quality standards, stronger labelling requirements for consumer products, and requirements for public and indigenous consultations regarding genetically engineered organisms, among others. It was disappointing that the Liberals and the Conservatives teamed up to undermine environmental protections, but it was not surprising to see them, yet again, listening to corporate lobbyists instead of scientists, doctors and environmental experts. One example of this was when the Liberals and Conservatives joined together to remove the reference to tailings ponds in the bill. This egregious amendment came from the Conservative members, who argued that tailings ponds are being managed very well. This is blatantly ignoring the science, the reports and the testimony from indigenous communities about the impact of pollution from tailings ponds. What was shocking is that the Liberals, who say they care about the environment, voted with the Conservatives to remove this vital provision. Pollution from tailings ponds is having devastating effects on communities, and the Liberal members on committee decided they would take out the only reference to tailings ponds in this legislation. Not even a month after this amendment passed, it was widely reported that the oil and gas giant Imperial Oil had a massive tailings pond leak that affected many indigenous communities near the site, including the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. What makes this case particularly horrific is that it has been happening since May 2022 and that the indigenous nations that were impacted were only informed almost a year later, in February 2023. This was after 5.3 million litres of toxic waste seeped into the ground and watershed that these communities rely on. That is two Olympic-sized swimming pools of toxic waste. Members from these communities came to speak about the failures of this federal government: the failure to protect the environment and the failure to protect the indigenous communities that were impacted. We must do more. We need to address this failure and properly regulate tailings ponds. This is why I put forward a report stage amendment to put the words “tailings ponds” back into the bill. I urge my colleagues in the chamber to vote in support of this amendment. Another area where the bill fails is on air quality. In fact, Bill S-5 does not mention air quality. Air pollution is the single greatest environmental risk to human health. Health Canada estimates that air pollution kills more than 15,000 people each year in Canada, and it is responsible for over $120 billion in socio-economic costs to the Canadian economy. Exposure to air pollution increases the risk of stroke, heart attack and lung cancer, as well as chronic and acute respiratory illnesses, such as asthma. There are also links to neurological diseases and adverse birth effects. The U.S. has had enforceable air quality standards for over 50 years. However, Canada has decided to continue to rely on voluntary standards. David Boyd, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, said that legally binding and enforceable ambient air quality standards are not just a matter of protecting the environment and public health, but that they are also important in creating a more equal Canada. Air pollution affects everyone, causing widespread violations of the right to breathe clean air, yet the burden of related diseases has a disproportional impact on certain vulnerable populations. Among the most severely harmed are women, children, the elderly, minorities, indigenous people, people living in poverty, people with pre-existing health conditions such as respiratory conditions or heart disease, and people who fall into several of these categories. Major sources of ambient air pollution, including power plants, refineries, factories, incinerators and busy roads, are often located in poor and racialized communities. Therefore, implementing ambient air quality standards in law and enforcing those standards across Canada is a matter of environmental justice. Parliament should strengthen Bill S-5 to ensure that Canada's first law recognizing the right to a healthy environment does not overlook action on air pollution. People's lives depend on it. When given the chance to make the Canadian Environmental Protection Act the strongest piece of environmental protection possible, the Liberals and Conservatives listened to the interests of big corporations over those of scientists and environmental experts. I also want to mention the amendments put forward by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. When it comes to protection of nature and when it comes to addressing genetically modified organisms, we need to ensure not only that we are listening to science, but also that we are listening to indigenous communities that are impacted when the Canadian government pushes through approvals for genetically modified salmon and other organisms that are central to the culture and livelihood of indigenous communities. There is a lot more to be said, but I will conclude by saying that my NDP colleagues and I are going to keep fighting to ensure that we protect our environment, that we protect human health and that we protect everything that we hold most dear for ourselves, for our children and for future generations. I am proud of the work that has been done, and I will be voting for this bill, but I hope that we do not wait another two decades to make these changes.

1336 words

Context: House Hansard - 121 - Oct/31/22

May/3/23 4:10:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

moved: That the amendment to Clause 9 of Bill S-5 be deleted.

13 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 121 - Oct/31/22

Oct/31/22 5:29:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about emissions reductions. However, I am still reeling from the fact that the Conservative colleague who spoke before her called into question whether humans are responsible for climate change. The science on the human contribution to modern global warming is clear. According to the world's top scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human emissions and activities have caused the vast majority of the warming observed since 1950. Does the member stand with her Conservative colleague who questions whether human-caused climate change is real, or will she clearly condemn the anti-science rhetoric from her colleague?

104 words

All Topics

Oct/31/22 4:00:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, this bill does not address ambient air quality standards, even though air pollution contributes to over 15,000 deaths in Canada each year and air pollution is likely one of the most common ways that the right to a healthy environment would be violated. Would the member support including requirements that the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment include actions that the minister would take when ambient air quality standards are exceeded?

77 words

All Topics

Oct/19/22 5:35:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his work chairing the environment committee. It is a pleasure working with him. The member spoke about receiving lots of correspondence about the right to a healthy environment. The first people who came to me about the right to a healthy environment were Franny and Rupert. They started advocating for this in 2014 when they were seven and 10 years old. Now, eight years later, they are still incredible environmental advocates, and they want to see a strong right to a healthy environment. One of the ways the government could do that is to open up the section on enforcement and ensure that there is a strong citizen endorsement policy, and one that is not broken the way the current one is. I am curious about the member's thoughts on ensuring that the right to a healthy environment can be enforced.

149 words

All Topics

Oct/19/22 5:11:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question and also for her work on this issue. I know she has put forward motions to address this. It is a concern also in British Columbia, so it absolutely is something that needs to be addressed. We need to take strong action to ensure companies are not putting toxic chemicals into our environment that then enter our bodies. If we are thinking about our children and future generations, this is critically important to address.

83 words

All Topics

Oct/19/22 5:10:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question, for her work and for the motions she has put forward to protect watersheds and fresh water around Canada. I really appreciate her bringing up the motion that the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has put forward, because it is an environmental rights bill. To just put it in the preamble of this update to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is not the same thing. To talk about the right to a healthy environment is not the same thing as having a broad approach to making sure that across government this right is being protected. It is also not the same thing as ensuring that the mechanisms we have to enforce that right, to protect Canadians, are in place. I hope the government will look at the bill presented by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, but I also hope it will reconsider and open up the section on citizen enforcement, so that we can protect Canadians and the right to a healthy environment.

179 words

All Topics

Oct/19/22 5:08:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and I also enjoyed working on the environment committee with him. Yes, the delay is extremely troubling. It has been 20 years since the last time the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was updated, and it has been five years since we received recommendations from the environment committee. To now have a longer timeline is unacceptable. What is truly unacceptable, though, is to put forward a right to a healthy environment that cannot be enforced. That is what the government has done. What we want is to protect Canadians, the ecosystems, the environment, the air, the land and the water. This is vitally important, and we need to do it right.

119 words

All Topics

Oct/19/22 5:07:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I agree with the premise of the question, that labelling is incredibly important. Having Canadians know what is in the products they are using is vital if we want to protect human health. Unfortunately this bill would take a small step, but would not close the loopholes that allow industries to hide some of the things they are putting in the products we use. Yes, I want the government to move in this direction, but I hope it will be open to amending the bill and strengthening it, so that Canadians can truly be protected.

97 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 92 - Jun/21/22

Oct/19/22 4:58:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, every day, Canadians are exposed to chemicals from polluting industries that spew harmful chemicals into the air we breathe and into the waters of our lakes, our rivers and our oceans. At home, we also experience this in the products we use. Canadians expect their government to take action to protect them and their families from these toxic substances. They expect their government to ensure that all people have the right to live in a healthy environment. However, Canada's main environmental law to prevent pollution and regulate toxic chemicals is decades out of date. While over 150 other countries already have legal obligations to protect the right to a healthy environment, Canada does not. These are things New Democrats have been calling on the government to fix for years. While we are glad to see this bill finally come forward, there are some critical and troubling weaknesses and loopholes in the bill. In the two decades since the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was last updated, the number of chemicals that people in Canada are exposed to in their daily lives has grown exponentially. There has been a 50-fold increase in the production of chemicals since 1950 and this is expected to triple again by 2050. Personal care products are manufactured with over 10,000 unique chemical ingredients, some of which are either suspected or known to cause cancer, harm our reproductive systems or disrupt our endocrine systems. Over the last 22 years, we have also learned much more about the harmful cumulative effects of these toxic chemicals on our health. Nine out of 10 Canadians have hormone-disrupting chemicals used in consumer products in their blood and urine. We now know that exposure to hazardous chemicals, even in small amounts, can be linked to chronic illnesses like asthma, cancer and diabetes. According to Health Canada, air pollution is a factor in over 15,000 premature deaths and millions of respiratory issues every year in Canada. This is also an issue of environmental justice. Frontline workers, who are predominantly women and racialized people, often have higher exposure to hazardous chemicals. We know that, across Canada, indigenous, Black and racialized people are disproportionately impacted by toxic dumps, polluting pipelines, tainted drinking water and other environmental hazards. The former UN special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes has stated, “The invisible violence inflicted by toxics is an insidious burden disproportionately borne by indigenous peoples in Canada.” This is why this bill is so important. Without modernizing legislation to update chemicals management in Canada, and without the legal recognition of the right to a healthy environment, Canadians will continue to be exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals. The NDP has a long history of advocating for environmental rights and enshrining the right to a healthy environment in law. My colleague, the MP for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, has a private member's bill on enshrining the right to a healthy environment in an environmental bill of rights. For years, New Democrats have introduced legislation on the right to a healthy environment. The MP for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has been urging the government to amend Bill S-5 to incorporate the stronger language in his private member's bill. However, the government has not even committed to whether they will accept all of the amendments that the Senate put forward. While it is good to see the government finally taking steps in this direction, it is important to note that adding the right to a healthy environment in a limited way under CEPA is not the same thing as ensuring that, broadly, all people have the right to live in a healthy environment. There remain troubling limitations on how the right to a healthy environment will be applied and how the right will be enforced. While the Senate has made several positive amendments to improve the bill, including removing language stating that the right to a healthy environment should be balanced with economic factors, they have also left us with outstanding concerns about the enforcement of that right that they were not able to address. One of the most disappointing and concerning gaps is that the bill does not touch on the citizen enforcement mechanism in CEPA. The citizen enforcement mechanism is, frankly, broken. It has never been successfully used. The process is so onerous that it is essentially impossible for a citizen to bring an environmental enforcement action. Without a functioning citizen enforcement mechanism, there are serious questions about how the right to a healthy environment can be truly enforced. Because the government decided not to fix the enforcement of CEPA in the bill, it will be out of scope for amendments. This is a huge gap, but there are also other critical gaps in the bill. It lacks clear accountability and timelines for how toxic substances are managed. It lacks mandatory labelling so Canadians can make informed choices about the products they use. It would not fix loopholes that allow corporations to hide which toxic substances are in their products. If we want to protect the environment and our health, we have to ensure that we are following the advice of scientists and experts, not the interests of big corporations. These big corporations, made up of some of Canada's biggest polluting industries, have been attempting to stop amendments to Bill S-5, amendments that would strengthen the bill. They are lobbying against better protection for people and for communities. These groups wrote to the Senate, urging the Speaker “to reverse the amendments introduced by the Committee and pass Bill S-5 as it was originally introduced.” These corporations do not want to be accountable for their toxic pollution. They do not want the right to a healthy environment to be enforceable. They would prefer the bill the Liberals originally put forward. They would prefer a bill with enough loopholes to keep profits and pollution high, but people fundamentally have the right to live in a healthy environment. It is why New Democrats are fighting to amend and fix these loopholes. In addition to pushing the government to fix the bill, we have also been pushing for an office of environmental justice. The United States already has an office of environmental justice as part of its Environmental Protection Agency, and it has had it since 1992. If we established such an office in Canada, it could not only help coordinate the national strategy on environmental racism, improving our understanding of the burden of preventable environmental health hazards faced by indigenous, Black and racialized communities, but also help us assess possible interventions to address these hazards and ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to enjoy the same level of environmental protection. Environment and Climate Change Canada is going to need more resources and capacity if the government is truly committed to addressing environmental inequities and upholding the right to a healthy environment. An office of environmental justice could provide structure and additional capacity to carry out this important work. I find the failure to address enforcement in Bill S-5 the most troubling loophole, but I want to mention a few other gaps in the bill. It does not include legally binding and enforceable air quality standards. It would fail to establish a more open, inclusive and transparent risk assessment process for the evaluation of genetically modified organisms. These are critically important areas the government has chosen not to address, and since the government did not open up these sections, like the section on enforcement, they are areas the government has deemed out of the scope of the bill, so it is not open to fixing them with amendments. This is incredibly troubling. It has been over 20 years since CEPA was last updated. The environment committee studied this issue and made recommendations on how to fix it five years ago. We have been waiting for this bill, waiting for years, so why have the Liberals left so many gaps, loopholes and issues that still need to be fixed? Canadians cannot wait another two decades while they continue to be exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals, while the environment is polluted, and while human health is threatened. We need to protect Canadians now. My New Democrat colleagues and I will continue to push the government to improve the bill, and we will not stop fighting for the right to a healthy environment, a truly enforceable right that ensures that all Canadians can enjoy safe products and a healthy environment for generations to come.

1434 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 92 - Jun/21/22

Jun/21/22 12:14:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his answers, for being available to answer questions at this late hour, past midnight, and for his reflections on this scathing report from the environment commissioner. I also want to bring up what the environment commissioner is pointing to, which is that this government has been going from failure to failure. His own department called carbon capture “high risk” and said that with their plan, it was not feasible to meet emissions reduction targets in the oil and gas sector. Experts have learned not to rely on carbon capture to meet our climate targets, yet when big oil asks for yet another subsidy, billions of dollars of more public money, the government gave them the carbon capture tax credit. The government also bought a pipeline, approved Bay du Nord and plans to increase oil and gas production. That is not a climate plan. Why are the Liberals listening to big oil instead of climate experts?

166 words

Context: House Hansard - 92 - Jun/20/22

Jun/21/22 12:06:46 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by quickly acknowledging the work of an incredible organization in my riding. I am very pleased to highlight the incredible work of the Société francophone de Victoria, which serves more than 5,000 people who speak French in Victoria. In addition to promoting, representing and protecting the French language and culture, this organization has created spaces that foster inclusion and celebrate expression. From June 21 to August 18, it will hold Rendez-vous Victoria, a community event with music activities and performances, all in French. To support its objective of creating an inclusive francophone community space in the downtown area, the Société francophone de Victoria has applied for federal funding to help buy the building it currently occupies and make it more accessible. I am very grateful to this organization for its passion and dedication, and I am asking the government to support its work. Now I will get to a critical issue. Last week, we found out that internal documents from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada showed that the Liberal government’s climate plan and targets are not feasible. Sadly, it is not surprising. Canada has never met a single climate target it set. Under the Liberals, Canada has the worst record in the G7, and Canada has the worst track record in the G20 when it comes to handing out public money to oil and gas companies. It has now been three years since the Liberals declared a climate emergency, but they are still not taking action at the scale or speed required. Their claim that they could reduce oil and gas emissions while increasing oil and gas production never made any sense. It is clear that we will not meet our targets by relying on costly, unproven carbon capture technology, technology that those same internal documents called “high risk”. The Liberals’ emissions reduction plan only aims to meet the low end of their target to reduce emissions by 40% to 45%, which is not adequate. It does not leave any room for error, yet they are relying on “high risk” carbon capture technology. The IPCC is clear that the world urgently needs to move away from fossil fuels and make significant investments in renewable energy if we have any hope of securing a livable future. They have also warned against relying too heavily on carbon capture. They point out that it is one of the most costly and least effective options. Renewable energy technology is ready and available, and over the past decade the costs have decreased significantly. The International Energy Agency reports that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of new electricity generation in history, and their cost continues to drop. If we are going to meet our climate targets and avoid the most catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis, Canada needs to dramatically boost investments in renewable energy. These investments, along with strengthening grids and electrifying infrastructure, not only help us fight the climate crisis, but also create good, long-term jobs for Canadians. Instead of investing in renewables and in a just transition for workers, Canada continues to hand out billions in public financing to profitable oil and gas companies. Will the government commit to ending all fossil fuel subsidies, stop funnelling billions of dollars to profitable oil and gas companies through a carbon capture tax credit and instead invest in real climate solutions?

585 words