- Member of Parliament
- Deputy whip of the New Democratic Party
- NDP
- Victoria
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 61%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $127,392.53
- Government Page
- Jun/3/24 9:33:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last year's summer was the hottest on record and the most devastating for wildfires. Smoke from wildfires forced kids to spend their days indoors, and Canadians across the country were evacuated from their homes because of the wildfires.
Our kids are breathing in harmful toxins, and when I think about the summer to come, it is only going to get worse with this year's wildfire season. However, we have the Liberals, who keep acting like it is business as usual. They are breaking their climate promises, handing out billions of dollars to Canada's biggest polluters and watering down key climate policies, like the emissions cap. The Conservatives, though, cannot even agree that climate change is real. Canadians should not have to choose between deny and delay, but it is not only wildfire smoke that is contributing to air pollution and making people sick.
This past year, we saw increased deaths due to air pollution because of the wildfires, but on average, in Canada, 15,000 Canadians die each year because of air pollution. We also know that petrochemical plants are making people sick. In Ontario, the Aamjiwnaang First Nation issued a state of emergency declaration last month due to excessive discharge of benzene from an industry factory. Several people had fallen ill with headaches, nausea and dizziness, and it is all too common that these impacts disproportionately affect indigenous communities.
This is unacceptable, and the government must do more to regulate industry pollution. It also needs to do more to tackle the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving up emissions, that are threatening the future for our children and our grandchildren and that are polluting our air, so much so that a child in Edmonton said that it felt like an elephant was standing on their chest. This is in Canada.
I continue to be disappointed by the Liberal government's refusal to address environmental dangers, to address environmental racism and to protect Canadians. Will the Liberals stop putting the interests of the biggest polluters over the health and safety of Canadians?
347 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 10:14:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition. The petitioners note that we are facing intersecting crises, the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis, as well as pollution and resource depletion.
The petitioners are calling on the government to publicly declare its support for the international crime of ecocide.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, burning coal for electricity is the dirtiest source of power generation. It produces the most greenhouse gases globally. The IPCC states that the world must dramatically reduce its consumption of coal by 2030 to avoid the worst outcomes of the climate crisis. When thermal coal is exported to be burned in other countries, it has a devastating impact on global emissions. However, here in Canada, the government is choosing to ignore the facts when it comes to coal.
In 2021, the Liberals ran on an environment platform that promised they would phase out thermal coal exports. When they formed government, the Prime Minister ordered the Minister of Environment to phase out thermal coal exports in his mandate letter. What actions has the Liberal government taken since then? Nothing. In fact, since the Liberals took power in 2015, thermal coal exports have tripled. How can the Minister of Environment look at himself in the mirror? How can the Liberal members look at themselves in the mirror and call themselves climate champions?
Canada is ignoring its own climate commitments and sending millions of tonnes of thermal coal across the globe. We are shipping the dirtiest fossil fuel to be burnt in faraway lands where we can close our eyes and pretend that everything is fine. Everything is not fine.
Greenhouse gas emissions do not know international borders. Rising temperatures hurt us all. Increased natural disasters are happening around the globe, but especially here in Canada in my home province of B.C. Even if the thermal coal that originates from Canada or the U.S. is burnt in China, it is the same greenhouse gas emissions that fuel the conditions for the dry forests that light up in flames across this country, displacing thousands of people.
Why has the government not fulfilled its promise to Canadians to end thermal coal exports? Why does it continue to mislead Canadians and promise climate action, but continually fall short? It is no wonder that Canadians are cynical. This last year alone, Canada exported 19.5 million tonnes of thermal coal. In 2022, 40 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions were burnt from Canadian thermal coal exports. That is roughly the same number of emissions as 16.7 million cars. Every year, air pollution contributes to roughly one million deaths around the world. Burning coal is a big factor in this.
Canadian coal should not be playing a role in polluting the air we breathe. This is one of the many reasons I tabled my private member's bill, Bill C-383, to phase out thermal coal exports, work with unions to ensure sustainable job transitions and fulfill our international climate commitments.
My question for the member is this: Will you fulfill your promise to Canadians and phase out thermal coal? Why have you broken this promise?
473 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 7:12:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the climate crisis is here. Thousands of Canadians were evacuated from their homes in the worst wildfire season on record. Hundreds died in heat domes. Extreme weather is only getting more frequent and more severe.
If we want to have any hope of meeting our climate targets, we must implement a strong emissions cap on the oil and gas industry. In Canada, despite accounting for just 5% of Canada's economy, oil and gas is responsible for over a quarter of Canada's emissions, more than any other sector.
Despite the greenwashing that we hear from industry lobbyists, from their friends in the Liberal Party and from corporate-controlled Conservatives, oil and gas emissions are increasing year after year. The oil and gas sector's expansion has gone unchecked in Canada, and there have been no limits on how much pollution they are allowed to create.
A strong cap on emissions would be that limit. The Liberals promised to deliver a cap on emissions but, instead, they continue to delay and disappoint. It is time to hold the oil and gas sector accountable for the fact that they are fuelling the climate crisis. It is not like they cannot afford it. Oil executives are raking in record profits, while everyday Canadians are struggling to make ends meet.
If the Liberals wanted to stop pretending to be a climate leader and instead take real climate action, they would stop listening to oil and gas CEOs and implement a hard cap on emissions, one without the loopholes and delays that the oil and gas lobbyists are pushing for.
A hard cap would be aligned with the Paris Agreement of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. It needs to be enforceable, and a hard cap on absolute levels of emissions; no loopholes and relief valves that let companies off the hook. This means emissions reductions would need to happen within the sector, not through purchasing offsets for reductions elsewhere. Companies should only receive credit for proven reductions, not hypothetical reductions based on speculative technologies.
A strong emissions cap needs to include strong enforcement measures. Penalties and fines have to be significant enough that they actually deter or change behaviour rather than simply allowing companies to internalize small fines as the cost of doing business and continuing with business as usual.
We need to look at compliance mechanisms that are not financial, things like mandated production cuts or the use of the criminal powers under CEPA. It also must uphold indigenous rights. We need to ensure that the rights affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples continue to be upheld within the emissions cap, including securing indigenous peoples' free, prior and informed consent for energy development in their territory.
The Liberal government needs to get serious about prioritizing our health and our future over the profits of rich CEOs. We cannot afford a weak emissions cap that does not hold the oil and gas industry accountable.
My question to the member is this. When will the government stop delaying and start keeping some of its climate promises? When will we see a cap on emissions?
530 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 3:10:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried about plastic pollution. They want progress on banning single-use items to keep our coastlines clear and to protect human health. The Liberals broke their promise to ban single-use items by 2021, and now the proposed ban would cover less than 1% of plastics. It does not even include items like coffee cups, lids, cigarette butts and other harmful plastics. Plastic pollution is threatening our oceans, our wildlife and our health.
Will the minister start showing some environmental leadership and expand the ban on single-use plastics?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
