SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 113 - Oct/19/22

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Oct/19/22 6:24:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, as I said in an earlier intervention, there is no doubt that there is a need to update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and that there are some very good things in Bill S-5. However, surveys have found that there are a lot of toxic substances in ordinary consumer products. We had a study that found very high levels of lead in products that were being sold in dollar stores, including in canned food and children's toys. This bill does not have any requirement for more transparency from corporations about the presence of toxic chemicals in ordinary consumer products. Why is that left out of this version of the bill?

114 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/19/22 6:24:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question and I cannot give the member the answer, but I can say that I would like to know the answer to that. I think people have the right to know what is in a product, in something that they are buying, and in particular if they are buying something for a dependent, for example, or if they are buying it for a child. I think it is very important, as a parent, that I know, when I am purchasing something, if there is a potentially toxic chemical in there. I invite the question. I want to know the answer to it. I really hope that we get the answer to it through the process as the bill moves through the House, because I would like to know the answer to that as well.

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Oct/19/22 6:25:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend on his seven years in office in Ottawa and also wish Kelly, who is an incredible young man, a happy birthday. To his point earlier, in terms of the need for carbon pricing and the history of the Conservative Party, if I recall, in the previous election that concluded in September of last year, the Conservative Party and those who are here, elected as a result of their platform, did run on a platform of carbon pricing. I am wondering if he could elaborate on what that impact has had on Canadians.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/19/22 6:26:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely right, including the member on the Conservative bench who is heckling me, who is a climate denier. Yes, they ran on it. They ran on a platform of putting a price on pollution. It is not the same way that we are pricing pollution. It was done in a different way. It was proposed by their former leader, the member for Durham, in a different way, but they ran on it. They ran on the idea of pricing pollution.

84 words

All Topics

Mr. Bob Zimmer

Oct/19/22 6:26:46 p.m.
Watch

Strike three.

2 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/19/22 6:27:05 p.m.
Watch

No, you did not get up on this one. The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

18 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

Oct/19/22 6:27:05 p.m.
Watch

I tried, but you did not recognize me.

8 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Oct/19/22 6:27:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, who, on this side of the bench, is the so-called biggest climate denier? Historically, what has occurred is that, when a scientific basis for a comment or an explanation is not in reach or does not exist, their reaction is to automatically call the person who is questioning the science behind what they are stating some sort of name.

62 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/19/22 6:27:05 p.m.
Watch

I would invite the hon. member, instead of yelling across, to ask a question and to be recognized, as opposed to—

22 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/19/22 6:27:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it appears as though there is a bit of a jealousy going on, because maybe this member who is asking me the question is indeed the biggest climate denier. We just have to watch the Gallant news network to see that for ourselves—

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/19/22 6:27:51 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that he is not to use the name of an individual, either first or last, and I would ask the hon. member to ensure that he is careful with how he describes individuals.

40 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/19/22 6:28:14 p.m.
Watch

I am sure that the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke wants to hear the answer.

18 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/19/22 6:28:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I do apologize for using the member's name. I was actually referring to the newscast program. I thought that was the proper name of that and I was not trying to reference her name. However, she is on the record suggesting that climate change is not real on multiple occasions, not just on social media but in the House. If it is going to be a competition as to who is the bigger climate denier, let the Conservatives sort that out on their own and then they can come back and tell us.

96 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Oct/19/22 6:28:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Apologize. Resign.

2 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Oct/19/22 6:28:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, if you check the record, you will find that when he asked that question last time, I replied that I agreed that the climate has been changing since—

36 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/19/22 6:29:10 p.m.
Watch

It is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

24 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/19/22 6:29:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise to speak to such an important piece of legislation. It is probably one of the more substantive pieces, as it would update and possibly modernize legislation that, in my opinion, is going to have a real impact on Canadians. Having a right to a healthy environment is something that we should never take too lightly, and I believe this legislation would establish a framework that would provide a much higher level of confidence for Canadians. For the first time, we have a government in Canada that sees that each and every one of us has a right to a healthy environment. I remember listening to newscasts years ago that talked about the chemicals being put into products that were ultimately sold to children. I am thinking particularly of those small products that infants and young children would put in their mouths, which were primarily imported into Canada. We did not know the chemical makeup of the paints used, for example, but the product was being put directly into the mouths of children and being digested. There was a time when asbestos was recognized as a wonderful product, and homes in all regions of our country were using the product as a form of insulation. In fact, if we go far enough back in time, we will see that governments were possibly subsidizing and encouraging the consumption of that particular product. How things have changed, and I see that as a very strong positive. Fast-forward to today. We are now debating a piece of legislation that would deal with many chemicals, carcinogens and toxins, and how we can make a difference in what the public as a whole is seeing in our communities. Whether it is walking down the street or purchasing a product, we would have a better sense of what it means to have a healthy environment in which to live. Earlier, a member from the Conservative Party asked about this whole idea that any Canadian would be able to request a substance to be assessed, and he tried to portray it in a negative light to my colleague in the form of a question. I, too, will wait as we see the framework flushed out to see how that issue will be appropriately addressed. However, what I take away from this legislation is that, for the first time, we would be empowering the people of Canada to be able to say, “Here is a substance that causes concern from a health perspective that I would like to see the Government of Canada address.” I see that as a strong, positive measure. The details of that will come out in time, but my colleague answered the question by saying that it would possibly require some sort of triaging to determine priority in terms of possible investigations. I do not know the details of it, but I think the vast majority of people would recognize that this is a significant step forward. When we talk about having a right to a healthy environment, that is the type of example that I will give to the constituents I represent. I think people can relate to that. Today at second reading we are talking about the principles of the legislation. I am really encouraged that there is a commitment for ongoing reconciliation in the legislation. I made reference earlier to UNDRIP and how that is being brought in, in terms of the calls to action on the issue of reconciliation. We have a Prime Minister and a government as a whole that recognize the importance of indigenous communities in dealing with legislation such as what we are talking about today. It was a commitment that was given virtually from day one when today's Prime Minister of Canada was first elected not as the Prime Minister but as the leader of the Liberal Party, in third party status here in the House. The Prime Minister made the commitment on the calls to action. Even within this legislation it might not necessarily be the biggest highlight for all people, but the principle of what is being talked about, and incorporating it into the legislation, is another clear indication of the sincerity of this government wanting to move forward on the issue of reconciliation. It is so vitally important not only for the Prime Minister, but also for all members. Particularly within the Liberal caucus, it is something that is constantly being talked about in a wide variety of different departments. In talking about existing substances, I do not know much in terms of science, but I do know there are carcinogens and toxins that, as everyone understands and appreciates, cause serious issues for our environment and Canadians in general. There is an established list, at least in part. It is important that we continue to assess and manage those substances. It is important that we keep an open mind, as no doubt there will be a need to add to that list. Something that is talked about within this legislation is the development of a watch-list. I would suggest we could take that back to some of my first comments in regard to Canadians being able to contribute to that. We often hear from our constituents about the issue of animal testing, how animals are being used as test subjects for different consumer products and more. In a very real way this legislation is moving us forward on that issue in looking at ways in which we could minimize animals being used for testing. The bill talks about labelling, an issue I made reference to earlier, and how we ensure there is consistency in labelling so there is a better understanding of what is in the contents. My colleague made reference to the importance of provincial and federal jurisdiction. As a government, we are committed to working with indigenous communities, provincial governments and other stakeholders. Caring for our environment and protecting the health of Canadians is all of our responsibilities. We, as a national government, have a leadership role to play, and I believe Bill S-5 is demonstrating that leadership role.

1032 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Oct/19/22 6:39:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I was beginning to think there was a scintilla of hope that if this bill went to committee, there would be some sort of redemption, but the member opposite convinced me that there is not even going to be an attempt to make these initial decisions based on a scintilla of science. He said that somebody might be afraid or feel that something might be toxic and it is put on the list, but that is not the way we do it. We have a rigorous system for developing the list of toxic chemicals that exist here or that can be brought into Canada. He mentioned lead paint. I am sure he would be comforted to know that in Canada and the United States, we have not been putting lead in paint since 1992, not to say what is on the walls already that should not be. From what he says, somebody who fears that ground beef could be toxic could have it put on the list and everybody would be denied ground beef and it would have a warning label. Actually, that was proposed earlier this year. I am glad that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency thought better of it.

203 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/19/22 6:40:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, there are many things I could say. One of the biggest differences between the Stephen Harper government and this government is that science is a factor. Science matters. We have seen that throughout the pandemic and with many other policy initiatives that have been taken, including in Bill S-5. It is not like someone from anywhere in Canada said that something was a bad substance and needs to be added to the list and then all of a sudden it appeared on the list. No one is saying that at all. Obviously, science is a factor. At least when the Liberal Party is in government, science matters.

110 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Oct/19/22 6:41:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the right to a healthy environment, which obviously we support. I come from a coastal community. I can tell the House what it is like in coastal communities today. People cannot go anywhere without finding expanded polystyrene littered and broken apart along coastal shores, whether it be in coastal British Columbia or in Atlantic Canada. We know there are alternatives to expanded polystyrene that can be used which the government is not enforcing. The same member supported my Motion No. 51, which called on the government to regulate polystyrene in marine environments and reduce it, but the government has not done anything. I am hoping my colleague will come forward with what the government is going to actually do to tackle polystyrene in marine environments and end this environmental disaster that is taking place. It is impacting our food systems, the environment and the ecosystem that absolutely relies on a healthy environment. I hope my colleague and his government will finally take real action in banning polystyrene from being used, especially in industrial use and marine environments.

183 words

All Topics