SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 112 - Oct/18/22

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Oct/18/22 1:40:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Repentigny could expand on how we can improve this bill, especially around the right to live in a healthy environment and around how we have to not only strengthen the rights of Canadians to live in a healthy environment, but uphold those rights through individual powers to ask the government for remedies when those rights are violated.

65 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/18/22 1:41:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it truly works best when it is integrated into charters of rights. That is the best approach. Of course it requires a great deal of courage from the federal government to open constitutional talks. In 1990, the Canadian Bar Association proposed enshrining this in a charter, but it also said that we could have interim legislation. That is where the door could open slightly. On October 7, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands said that there were obstacles to clause 22. I admit that I have not had the time to look at that, but I think there are ways around this.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Oct/18/22 1:42:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague from Repentigny for exposing this bill's shortcomings in relation to the real right to a healthy environment. A real right is never weighed against other factors. A right is a right. Is there anything she would like to add about that? How does she think that concern should be addressed?

60 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/18/22 1:43:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, my colleague is again referring to the right to a healthy environment. His question is very similar to the question from our other NDP colleague, so I will offer the same answer. Bill S‑5 contains some interesting amendments from the Senate. As a political party, however, we would like to make other amendments on transparency, disclosure on mandatory labelling and strict product assessment requirements. A number of other amendments could be made. The title of the bill includes the word “strengthening”. We have some ideas about how to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

105 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Oct/18/22 1:44:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and analysis of the bill. I entirely agree with her when she says that the issue of the environment and that of health are closely linked. They are intricately linked. We could take a holistic approach to these issues. I have a two-part question. What does industry think of this bill? Has public health ever given an opinion, are they closely monitoring the issue and would they be a good expert to consult?

84 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/18/22 1:44:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam speaker, since my colleague was a nurse in another life, I understand why she also sees the link between the environment and health. I have had Zoom meetings with industry people who all agree on the first part of the bill tabled by the government. However, they are not so sure about the Senate amendments. In our opinion, the Senate amendments really strengthen the law. I will now put on my other hat, that of the union president I was in my former life. I am suspicious when industry says they agree with what is coming. It makes me think that we are not going far enough and that the measure needs to be strengthened. Let me give an example. Automobile manufacturers were uncompromising for 75 years in their response to the challenges of science. They were against seat belts; they were against anything that could improve vehicle safety. They lobbied strongly, but governments, elected officials, stood firm to impose safety equipment because that is what people needed. I think it is the same thing now for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Let us strengthen it and stand firm in the face of lobbying to achieve something. This is about our health. Speaking of health, the Association québécoise des médecins pour l'environnement, a branch of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, has provided some very interesting opinions on the subject.

240 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/18/22 1:46:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my dear colleague from Repentigny, especially for her remarks about my efforts in this place. We agree that Bill S-5 needs a lot of improvement. I want to ask a question about—

41 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Oct/18/22 1:46:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.

8 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/22 1:47:10 p.m.
Watch

Is it about interpretation? Mr. Terry Duguid: Yes. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Is it working now? Perhaps the hon. member could unplug and then plug in her mike again. It always helps if it is plugged in. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

48 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Oct/18/22 1:47:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, we are all human. That is not a problem. I want to ask my friend a question. What does she think of the Senate's amendments that eliminate the issue of balance, balancing with other factors? In Bill S-5, with the Senate amendments, there is not a real right to protect the environment. What is her response?

61 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/18/22 1:47:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is absolutely right. As I said, and as we have talked about at length, it is all smoke and mirrors. No one is fooled by this. We know that this does not make any meaningful changes in terms of rights. It is really just a pseudo-right, as indicated in the preamble of the act, and it does not affect other acts of Parliament or federal laws. Yes, the senators explored this. They criticized the fact that it was not a true right, that it was a pseudo-right. We want to work on that in order to integrate it into the body of the act, as a bare minimum. I know my colleague has been working on this bill for years. I look forward to working collaboratively with her.

144 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Oct/18/22 1:48:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is really important that we are talking about a bill that is about dealing with the central crisis of our time, which is climate. I would ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about a government that has made promise after promise to create a clean-energy economy but has missed every single climate target it has set.

61 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/18/22 1:49:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I will be very brief. We often hear that it is important to walk the talk. In the case of the federal government, the Government of Canada, it is definitely not walking the talk.

41 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Oct/18/22 1:49:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I would first like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time.

18 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/22 1:49:57 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time? Some hon. members: Agreed.

15 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Oct/18/22 1:50:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, with that, I would like to split my time with the wonderful member for Victoria. It is a real honour to rise here this afternoon to speak to Bill S-5, the government's new environmental protection act. I am happy to say that I will be supporting the bill at second reading with the hopes that it can be substantially strengthened at committee. The bill has come to us from the other place, and the Senate has made some important amendments to the initial government bill it considered. I am pleased to hear words from the government side that suggest it will be supporting those amendments. This is an important bill, as it would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA as it is known, which was enacted in 1999, 23 years ago. This act is largely concerned with—

144 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/22 1:50:58 p.m.
Watch

There are a lot of discussions happening, which is overshadowing the member's speech. I would ask members, if they want to have discussions, to take them out into the lobby. The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

40 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Oct/18/22 1:51:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-219

Madam Speaker, this act is largely concerned with protecting the environment and human health from toxins and maintaining air and water quality, but there is widespread agreement that CEPA is overdue for a substantial improvement. For one thing, it is widely considered to be unenforceable as it now stands, as there are multiple obstacles to enforcing it and remedies cannot be used. A lot has happened in 23 years. New chemicals have been invented that potentially impact our health, and the public has been increasingly concerned about the health of our environment and the impact of it on our health and on the populations of animals and plants that we share the world with and depend on for our well-being. A poll in 2017 found that nine in 10 Canadians are concerned about exposure to toxins from consumer products, 96% agreed that labels should disclose the presence of those toxins in consumer products and 92% agreed that Canada should recognize the right to live in a healthy environment. I would like to concentrate my remarks today on that final point: the right to live in a healthy environment. There are 159 countries around the world with legal obligations to protect the human right to a healthy environment, but Canada does not have those legal obligations. There are environmental bills of rights in Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but there is no federal law that explicitly recognizes the right to live in a healthy environment in Canada. International efforts to recognize that right go back to the 1972 Stockholm declaration, which recognizes the right to “an environment of equality that permits a life of dignity and well-being”. Fifty years later, this past summer, on July 28, the UN General Assembly passed a unanimous resolution that recognized the right to a healthy environment around the world. With Canada voting for that resolution to finally join the rest of the world and with the 92% of Canadians agreeing with it, it is certainly high time that we had federal legislation that recognized this right. I am happy to say that Bill S-5 provides a step in that direction. The preamble of CEPA will now include the following statement: “Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under this Act”. That is a good step, but there are limitations to that statement. For one, as the member for Repentigny mentioned, it is in the preamble where it does not really carry much legal weight. Also, the right is clearly restricted to the provisions of the act. In other words, it is around the control of toxins, air quality and water quality. This new act would also state that those rights are “subject to any reasonable limits” and that those limits will be elaborated on in the implementation framework through “the consideration of relevant factors, including social, health, scientific and economic factors”. It is therefore important to see how these rights will be upheld. The implementation framework of this bill will apparently also elaborate on mechanisms to support that right. While Bill S-5 seems to be a step forward in recognizing the right to live in a healthy environment, there are serious concerns that the right will not be backed up by measures that improve the enforceability of the act. In fact, the Senate committee studying the bill reported: This committee would like to state their concern that the right to a healthy environment cannot be protected unless it is made truly enforceable. This enforceability would come by removing the barriers that exist to the current remedy authority within Section 22 of CEPA, entitled “Environmental Protection Action.” There is concern that Section 22 of CEPA contains too many procedural barriers and technical requirements that must be met to be of practical use. As Bill S-5 does not propose the removal or re-evaluation of these barriers, this Committee is concerned that the right to a healthy environment may remain unenforceable. In discussions that I have had with top environmental lawyers about Bill S-5, I have heard more concerns that the implementation framework proposed in this bill would interpose the government between public rights and the remedies needed when those rights are violated. My first suggestion would be that the bill be strengthened by giving the residents of Canada more power to ensure that their right to live in a healthy environment is upheld. That is one of the things that my private member's bill, Bill C-219, would do. Bill C-219 is entitled the Canadian environmental bill of rights and will be debated later in this session. I would like to spend some time covering its provisions, because it suggests several ways Bill S-5 could and should be improved. I would like to mention here that Bill C-219 was drafted by my former colleague Linda Duncan, a brilliant environmental lawyer who was the MP for Edmonton Strathcona for many years. She introduced this same private member's bill four times during her career as an MP. It was never voted down but, unfortunately, died in each of those parliaments before becoming law. As I mentioned earlier, one of the limitations of the right to a healthy environment proposed by Bill S-5 is that it is restricted to the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It does not cover environmental protections outlined in other parts of the federal environmental mandate, such as the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and so on. Bill C-219 would provide umbrella coverage to all federal legislation outside of CEPA. CEPA was carved out of Bill C-219, apparently to avoid clashing legislation. On top of that wider coverage, Bill C-219 would provide stronger protections of the right to a healthy environment. Specifically, it would give residents of Canada the right to, among other things, access information about environmental concerns, standing at hearings, access tribunals and courts to uphold environmental rights, and request a review of laws. It would also provide protection to whistle-blowers. To conclude, I reiterate that I will be supporting Bill S-5 at second reading, but I hope the government will look carefully at my bill to see how it might inform efforts to improve Bill S-5 in committee amendments. I also hope that if the government is serious about extending the right to live in a healthy environment to all Canadians, that it will support my bill, the Canadian environmental bill of rights, to extend and strengthen that right to the entire federal mandate.

1129 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/22 1:59:05 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will have five minutes of questions and comments after question period.

14 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Oct/18/22 1:59:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, small businesses are at the heart of our communities and their owners are the dreamers and the doers that keep our economy strong. Whether it be the local café that brews that perfect cup of coffee or the family store downtown, small businesses create an invaluable sense of community. Richmond Hill owes a great debt of gratitude to our resilient small businesses for their continued perseverance. On Canada’s 43rd Small Business Week, I am proud to acknowledge Richmond Hill’s local shops but I also recognize the hardships that they have faced and adapted to in light of the pandemic. During the summer, I had the pleasure of visiting over 15 small businesses mostly led by inspiring women leaders. At Naeb Restaurant and Mexican Amigos, we heard their concerns over funding for growth. At Zarsima Hair Salon, Bottiba Boutique and Diva Brows and Beauty Academy, we heard their struggles to adjust the prices of their services due to inflation. These are the realities of many small businesses, and our government has heard them loud and clear. This week, we celebrate our unique small businesses and the incredible people behind them. We once again recommit to supporting them, as long as it takes.

208 words