SoVote

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

Oct/31/22 1:27:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, that is why I pointed out that there is still a lot of work to be done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, particularly with my colleague from Repentigny. A lot of work still needs to be done to rethink this legislation and look at what is missing from it. That issue has already been addressed. As I said, Quebec has basically enshrined this quasi-constitutional right in law, something that Canada has not done and should do. I hope that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development can examine this bill and propose new improvements to address this type of shortcoming.

108 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Oct/31/22 1:28:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, like many times in our history, we are at a crossroads in regard to choosing the well-being of people over profits. Too many times, government legislators have turned a blind eye to doing better to protect the health of people. Too many times, they have chosen to protect the profits of polluters and toxic industries because they did not know better or could not see the results of their choices manifesting in harmful ways in their very own communities. Today, we are once again at that crossroad of opportunity to do better, or to carry on with the status quo that is harming people in the name of corporate greed and profits. Over the past 50 years, science has told us, and cancer has shown us, that there are toxins in our bodies that should not be there. This is the fact of the matter, and this is what needs to be corrected. It is not just pollution in our air, water and land, but pollutants in our bodies, blood and breast milk exist. Pollutants that were put there by unregulated industry. While I was preparing for this speech, I was reminded of the choice of the 36th Parliament that made pollution prevention planning discretionary and not mandatory under CEPA in 1999. That was a mistake a past Parliament made, and after 23 years, after eight Parliaments, this is a decision that this 44th Parliament must finally correct. In those 23 years, only 25 toxic substances listed in the initial act have been subject to pollution prevention planning requirements. That is a rate of about one toxic substance every year. It will take 150 years for the existing list of toxins in the act to get a pollution prevention plan. As the Canadian Environmental Law Association stated, “This is a leisurely pace to addressing chemicals the federal government regards as the worst of the worst substances in the Canadian environment.” Looking at it in decade-long timelines, it makes me wonder why Canadian governments have not done more before now to protect human health from known cancer-causing toxins. Every day 641 Canadians are diagnosed with cancer, and here we are, 23 years later, looking at the inadequacy of CEPA. Canadians deserve better than the CEPA of the past, and it is the expectation of the NDP that this window of opportunity to improve environmental protections for Canadians and to offer them a right to a healthy environment is imperative to the health of us and of our children. We want a world where toxins being introduced into our bodies and the bodies of our children is not inevitable. The NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading with the hopes that it can be substantially strengthened to reach that goal. Bill S-5 is largely concerned with protecting the environment and human health from toxins and maintaining air and water quality. This is good, but there is widespread agreement that CEPA is overdue for substantial improvements. 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 by citizens. That needs to be corrected. 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. 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 this right will not be backed up by measures that improve the enforceability of the act. In fact, the Senate committee studying the bill reported just that. As my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay previously pointed out, Canadians deserve more power to ensure that their right to live in a healthy environment is upheld. That is one of the things that my colleague’s private member's bill, Bill C-219, would do. Bill C-219 is titled an act to enact the Canadian environmental bill of rights, and it offers umbrella coverage to all federal legislation outside of CEPA. Specifically, it would give residents of Canada the right to, among other things, access information about environmental concerns, have 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. I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-219 when it comes before the House in this session, because while it is good to see Bill S-5 here, 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, broadly, that all people have the right to live in a healthy environment, as is the goal of Bill C-219. There remain troubling limitations in Bill S-5 on how the right to a healthy environment will be applied and how the right will be enforced. 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. Canadians are exposed to chemicals from polluting industries every day in the air, in the waters of our lakes, rivers and oceans, and even in the safety of our own homes in the products we use. Canadians expect their government to take action to protect them and their families from toxic substances. They expect the government to ensure that all people have the right to live in a healthy environment. These are things New Democrats have been calling on the government to fix for years. While the government has chosen to do nothing, 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 in the past 50 years, and that 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. Even some disposable diapers have been shown to contain these harmful chemicals. Babies are being impacted. Since CEPA was first enacted, Canada has also learned much more about the harmful cumulative effects of these toxic chemicals on our health. 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. These toxins are impacting racialized communities even harder. Frontline workers, who are predominantly women or racialized, often have higher exposure to hazardous chemicals. Across Canada, indigenous, Black and racialized families are disproportionately negatively 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 stated, “The invisible violence inflicted by toxics is an insidious burden disproportionately borne by Indigenous peoples in Canada.” This is exactly why there must be a better enforcement mechanism in this bill so that communities, families and individuals can achieve the protection outlined in law. One of the most disappointing and concerning gaps in this bill is that it does not touch on the citizen enforcement mechanism. As the member for Victoria has said in the House, “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.” There are also other critical gaps in Bill S-5. 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 does not fix loopholes that allow corporations to hide which toxic substances are in their products. If we want to protect our health and the environment, 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—

1466 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/31/22 1:38:45 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member's time is up. I am sure she will be able to provide more information through questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

34 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Oct/31/22 1:39:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for those very thoughtful remarks, and for the indication that she would like to support getting the bill to committee so that it can be improved further. I agree with the hon. member on that. Does the hon. member have a comment on the tactics that she sees the Conservatives using on the other side? There is obviously a filibuster in play. I wonder if the hon. member would have a comment on that and agree with me that we need to get the bill to committee, so that we can improve it.

100 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/31/22 1:39:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the people of Port Moody—Coquitlam sent me to Ottawa to make their lives better. We know that 641 Canadians, every day, are diagnosed with cancer. I think that every day we wait for this bill is impacting Canadians in a negative way.

46 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

Oct/31/22 1:40:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I heard the member's speech and would agree. We are all concerned about the environment and having harmful chemicals affect our kids and their drinking water. The Liberal member across the way asked her a question. I would like to ask her a question about the Liberal record of inaction on the environment. What makes her think that now is going to be any different by just putting one more law in the books in regard to the environment?

82 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/31/22 1:41:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, as I said, the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam sent me to Ottawa to do the work for them. If I can save one person from getting cancer, I am going to do that work.

38 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Oct/31/22 1:41:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, as members know, the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a motion earlier this year, 2022, asserting Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment. Would my colleague comment on that? Is she willing to work together to ensure that this bill does not encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces?

56 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/31/22 1:41:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I did point out in my speech that I commend Quebec for the work that it is doing on the environment. I mentioned in my speech that it has stronger laws than the federal government. I commend it for that work and I admire it.

47 words

All Topics

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Oct/31/22 1:42:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is good that we are having this debate today. I too look forward to this legislation going to committee. As we know, on Friday we launched the poppy campaign in Waterloo. This year, the Royal Canadian Legion has launched a biodegradable poppy, which shows that every single one of us has an important role to play when it comes to protecting the environment. This is the first modernization to CEPA in over two decades, so I think every step does matter. I would like to hear from the member how she believes that by getting this to committee steps can be taken and, if more people jump in to protect the environment and take their role seriously, we actually can do something about it, rather than be cynical, as we are seeing from the official opposition.

139 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/31/22 1:43:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, citizens being able to have more influence and more ability to enforce a healthy environment is important. That is why it is important to have those amendments in this bill.

32 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Oct/31/22 1:43:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am interested in the hon. member finishing her speech. If she has some more comments to make, I would like to give her that time.

28 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/31/22 1:43:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that. Canadians cannot wait another two decades and continue to be unknowingly exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals. Our health is on the line. Let us hope that the 44th Parliament gets it right this time when the CEPA amendments come back to the House.

50 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Oct/31/22 1:43:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is always a good day to join my colleagues in the House of Commons for an important debate on Bill S-5, which was known in the last Parliament as Bill C-28. In the last Parliament, I served as opposition critic for the environment and had the chance to work with many members in the chamber who are quite concerned about the environment. Since the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, was first put in place in 1999, we have not seen a redo or significant amendment to it. As we all know, life is becoming increasingly more complex. What I do realize is that there are voices on both sides of the House of Commons who care deeply about the environment. Some may have concerns about its impact on industry. We have also those who have concerns about how it impacts everyday Canadians. That is particularly important for when we have these debates. The parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg has jumped onto his feet so many times today, accusing the opposition, and in this case the Conservatives, although we just heard from a Bloc Québécois member as well as from an NDP member, of essentially filibustering. Another member from Manitoba also just did that. Let us just put that to rest right now in my comments. Let us be mindful that CEPA actually has Criminal Code implications. When someone is charged under CEPA legislation, ultimately the mechanism is through the courts through the Criminal Code. It is extremely important for us to understand, especially considering as life has become more complicated and as different levels of government are trying to see a more environmentally friendly place for their citizens, that there are going to be more complex trade-offs. I am a former parliamentary secretary, and I know there are two types of parliamentary secretaries. There are those who burn shoe leather trying to build consensus in the House of Commons for their government's legislation or those who burn the shoe leather of their ministers by shining their shoes. Any parliamentary secretary who is trying to say that having debate in this chamber equates to filibustering is just wrong. I am going to get on to the actual legislation, but I think I made the point that when we have this once-in-a-legislative-lifetime ability to have conversations about critical legislation that has Criminal Code impacts, it should be taken on, and we should be celebrating those members who feel strongly about these issues. I would like to talk a bit about some of the concerns I have. First, I take some issue with the government's approach when it comes to the regulation of plastics. It is no surprise that in the last Parliament we went through this at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development at length. What we found was essentially that the industry and the province, by the way, Alberta, was most affected by the changes to plastic regulation. What we have is the government trying to pivot desperately from a bad decision. That bad decision was to list manufactured plastic as a toxic substance under schedule 1. We were coming out of the pandemic. We all know the same molecules that are used in a medical application are the same plastic molecules in a plastic straw. They are the same molecules that are used in a part for an electric vehicle, as electric vehicles are being made out of plastic more and more because it is strong and also lighter. For the government, this created quite a conundrum, because the industry obviously resented the fact. Actually, some industry players have taken the government to court over this, and I believe the Government of Alberta has done the same. To solve this, the government has now created two schedules: the highest risk and the lowest risk. Again, it has not actually fixed the problem, which is putting in manufactured plastics that are used in our everyday lives. I could not be speaking to the House of Commons today without the use of some plastics in the computer I use or the mouse I use. Many of the members would not be able to get there without the transportation for which those plastics allow. This is an area the government has complete hypocrisy and really should be held to account. It is not necessarily removing industry concerns when it comes to the new schedule, because they are still labelled as toxic. This will create a problem for the government as it tries to say plastic straws are bad and banned, but electric vehicles are good and it wants to see more investment in them. The government will have to deal with this issue at some point. When it comes to the chemical management plan, this plan was first adopted by the Harper government when the Hon. Rona Ambrose was the environment minister. I am going to start with the good, and then I am going to get to the bad and the ugly. The good is that the government has seen the wisdom in it and has decided to take the chemical management plan, which will allow for hazardous chemicals that have been shown conclusively can be risk managed, which means that there are plants in place and these companies are very good at it, to be utilized to make important substances we use in our everyday lives and in their chemical processes. This is important in an industrial economy. Yes, we still have an industrial economy. The Liberal government and the NDP's costly coalition has not done away with that just yet. That is an important part of it, so I am glad to see it maintained. However, the Senate has created a number of changes to the legislation that could cause some considerable consternation, because oftentimes as legislators we will hear from different groups and try to placate some groups in how it is used by creating uncertain language. For example, amendment 9 and 15 by the Senate would replace the schedule 1 substances that pose the ”highest risk” language, in reference to schedule 1 part 1, with more prescriptive language. We would prefer the “highest risk” language, because it includes the term “risk”. As I said, this is a risk management process, and the removal of the words “highest risk” would make the provision's enforcement unclear. This could lead to all sorts of litigation down the road. As I said, if someone violates CEPA, it would not be just a simple slap on the wrist or issuing a fine to industry that gets passed on to consumers; it would be serious business. We need to be very careful about this. I would like to focus on something, because a lot has been said. The NDP has been really trying to balance its rhetoric during election cycles and to its constituents with what the Liberals have put forward with the so-called “right to a healthy environment”. Essentially, the New Democrats say they are going to take the legislation to committee and make it better, because they want to ensure it is a right. I had the opportunity in the last Parliament to have an official from Environment and Climate Change Canada come and discuss specifically another piece of legislation. I asked about Bill C-28, and I said this, on April 14, 2021, at the environment committee's 25th meeting: I'll be as quick as I can. When people think of rights, they think of the charter, for example, that the government cannot do this to you, those kinds of civil rights, etc. There are multiple ones, yet the right to a healthy environment, what does that mean, and are they at the same level? Ms. Laura Farquharson said, “Bill C-28 recognizes a right to a healthy environment under CEPA, and it's set out that there will be an implementation framework to delineate how that lens will be used in the administration of the act.” My response was, “Will the right to a healthy environment under CEPA only solely apply to the regulatory enforcement of CEPA?” She replied, “It not only applies to regulatory enforcement; it would apply also to how policies are developed under that act, but the point is, it only applies to that act.” I replied, “It's a limited right, or not even technically that.” She replied, “Right.” Again, the NDP has basically sided with the government. Its members will say they are looking for further amendments, but it is clear this is just a factor, not a right, to be taken when a bureaucrat is looking through a lens of social economic responses, either for a policy or enforcement under CEPA alone. This is not a clear cut right, like we would see in the Charter of Rights or the Bill of Rights. Those are a few of my concerns. I hope I have brought a few concerns to the floor that others have not. I also hope that the parliamentary secretaries can understand we are here to talk about CEPA, because this is the once-in-a-generation opportunity, as parliamentarians, for us to be able to discuss this important legislation.

1570 words

All Topics

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

Oct/31/22 1:54:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the member is a little sensitive with respect to the questions I have been asking, and it is because we have a substantial legislative agenda. Whether it is tax breaks, giving GST rebates, the dental care program or the rental program, there are so many programs and pieces of legislation for us talk about. On the legislation we are debating today, Bill S-5, I am a little anxious to find out when the Conservatives would like it to pass. Should it be this year or next year? Given the number of members who have spoken on the bill, and it seems the member has a lot of good stuff that he would love to discuss at the committee stage, why not allow that debate at committee? Let us pass the legislation and get it to committee so he can make some of those amendments, make those suggestions, and see if the Conservatives can make some changes to the legislation.

162 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Oct/31/22 1:55:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I have many questions and comments about the member, but I will start with this. First, I am not sensitive to the member; I am just tired of him. Second, I have been on the committee and understand how this works. There is a very small number of MPs on committee and the rest of us in this chamber, who are not on the environment committee, will not be able to raise those questions. I would like to talk about the governance changes that the government has put in the bill, where the Food and Drug Administration component of CEPA will be given strictly to Health Canada. I have some issues about the impact of endocrine disruptors on the environment and I do not know necessarily that it is a good move, but I will not be at that committee. It is patently unfair for the member to be saying we should just move on. That is a bad-faith discussion on his behalf.

166 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/31/22 1:55:59 p.m.
Watch

I would remind members to be respectful toward each other. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

17 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Oct/31/22 1:56:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, my question is actually very simple. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since 1999, in other words, since the last century. A lot has changed since then, including knowledge about the toxicity of certain products and the increased health risks associated with using certain products together. Could my colleague point to something in the act that needs to be amended in order to improve it?

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Albas

Oct/31/22 1:56:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, as I said, it is important to me that the process be enriched by discussions in the House. I think that is also important to members from across the country, especially those from Quebec. As I said, the Senate put forward many amendments. We will have to discuss whether those amendments are good for the bill. I do not think they all are, but I would like to hear from other members. I respect what they have to say in this chamber, not just necessarily the voices at committee.

91 words

All Topics

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

Oct/31/22 1:58:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, this debate should have been settled a long time ago. What I find deeply concerning is that the Conservatives continually raise questions about a fundamental part of the bill, which is a right to a clean environment. I would think we would agree across all party lines to a clean environment, but apparently not the Conservatives. Also, I am very concerned about their promotion of single-use plastics and toxic chemicals, and not getting a bill through the House that would protect and keep the environment safe.

89 words

All Topics