SoVote

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

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

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Oct/31/22 4:00:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the bill is not perfect. We would like to see it perfect coming out of the committee, after all the amendments that would take place. I also spoke about how there is no definition for rights in the bill, as far as environment, water and clean air. The bill is yet to be perfect. I hope that, through the committee and through consultation, we would get a nice piece of legislation that would really help Canadians. We could make it what it is meant to be.

88 words

All Topics

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

Oct/31/22 4:01:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to clarify some constitutional elements that have been misunderstood in the debate so far today. I have heard a number of Conservative MPs say that somehow this involves the Criminal Code. I want to clarify this really forcefully: I have a lot of problems with this bill, but it does not involve the Criminal Code. It involves the head of powers, the criminal law powers, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada back in the Hydro-Québec case. The government is entitled to legislate to protect Canadians from toxic substances and others that threaten our health. It does not involve criminality in the sense of the Criminal Code. If my hon. colleague has any comments, I would welcome them.

129 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Oct/31/22 4:02:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I have thought the Green Party has been silent on the environmental policies, and I would like to see more coming from its side.

26 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Oct/31/22 4:02:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and other legislation. This initiative is welcomed because the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since 1999, and much has happened since then. I do not want to overstate the significance of what is going on here. This draft bill streamlines a program that is already in place and has been working effectively for many years. This is more about the administration of a program than bold, new ideas about the environment. I want to talk about a couple positive things with this draft legislation. The preamble of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would read, “every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment”. The preamble of the legislation would also recognize, “the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. We have no arguments with these broad, aspirational statements, but that is what they are. They are broad, aspirational statements. There is nothing in the bill that gives substance to these statements. In fact, we are going to have to wait two years to see the government's implementation framework to see what the government considers to be a healthy environment. This is typical Liberal Party virtue signalling. It is devoid of substance. This is what Canadians have learned to expect of the Liberal Party: lofty words with little substance. Another positive thing in this bill is that the government listened to stakeholders, and that is always welcomed. There were experts were familiar with the benefits and risks of chemicals used in the everyday life of Canadians. Toxic substances need to be used in a safe manner, and we need to listen to experts. Bill S-5 preserves the risk-based approach to chemical management as opposed to the hazard-based approach. My understanding of the distinction is that the preferred risk-based approach focuses on actual outcomes. It does a risk-benefit analysis. Clearly, not all hazards can be removed out of our lives, but they can be managed, and that is what this bill does. That is a good thing, and we accept that. The bill also continues the tradition of being fact-based and evidence-based. We need to follow the science, use a precautionary principle, and make decisions based on the best evidence available at the time. Generally, we accept these principles. All government decisions should be based on facts, not on ideology. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has a fairly poor record. For example, if we take Bill C-21, which is the bill that would ban all handguns in Canada, that bill is being studied at the public safety committee right now. The public safety committee has just finished a study on reducing gun and gang violence in Canada. We heard from more than 40 witnesses who are experts in the field, and not one of them said that the problem was handguns owned by lawful gun owners. As a matter of fact, what we were told was that the vast majority of guns and firearms used in crime in Canada were smuggled in from the United States of America. The U.S. is the largest gun manufacturing economy in the world, with whom we share the largest undefended border with in the world. Admittedly, this creates a big problem for Canadians, but taking the frustrations out on lawful gun owners is not the solution to this problem. Wanting to stay positive, I am now going to turn to the Conservative Party's record on the environment. It is well known that Canada's most successful pro-environmental prime minister was the Conservative, Brian Mulroney. In the 1980s, acid rain was a big problem in both Canada and the U.S. Our great lakes were dying off. The environment was suffering. Fish stocks were in decline. Mr. Mulroney claims that his biggest and proudest achievement was the Canada-U.S. air quality agreement, which finally broke the back of acid rain. This achievement was not about virtue signalling. It was about achieving real, measurable results. It took real effort. It took co-operation with our neighbours. It took political will and stamina. It took the common-sense approach that Conservatives prefer. We understand that global climate change is in fact global. We need to work with our allies, our trading partners and all peoples on this planet, as we did with the acid rain agreement. Take plastics, for example. With the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the bill we are talking about today, plastic manufactured items would be listed as toxic. We knew this was coming, and here is what our Conservative Party campaign platform from last year contained: “To meaningfully contribute to tackling ocean plastic, we must recognize that plastic is a global problem”. Further on, our platform said, “The current government’s approach has been heavy on slogans but light on action. Declaring plastics ‘toxic’ isn’t helping our environment but is driving jobs out of Canada.” Again, this is common sense, not the flash and bang that we learned in a high school drama class. Let us get down and do the work. The same goes for the Liberal Party's carbon tax, which ignores the international threats to our global environment. The Liberals want Canada to produce less carbon, so their solutions is to leave our natural resources in the ground and let other countries rack up carbon debits, to produce less natural gas and let Russia fill the void in Europe and to produce less oil and make Saudi Arabia and Venezuela happy. It would be one thing if the Liberals' version of a price on pollution actually had the desired effect, but despite a lot of pious talk on emission reductions, Canada is falling further behind. Now the Liberals are going to triple the carbon tax. How high does it have to go before we will actually start to see our emissions come down? Maybe in a few years' time we are going to see what effect the tripling had. Maybe it is going to have to be tripled again after that. Canada is a big and cold country. We are going to consume energy just to survive and operate. More and more people, admittedly, live in urban ridings and can take public transit, like those in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, where I am very happy to say the squeaky wheel got the grease and we got a commitment that the SkyTrain will come to Langley. However, many people living in rural areas simply do not have that choice. Ask a family in rural B.C. if they will pull their kids out of hockey because the price of gas is too high. Of course they will not. They will take the pickup truck, see the price at the pumps and be reminded why they are so irritated by the federal government. Then they will drive the 100 kilometres to a hockey tournament. This is what we do. This is how we live. I want to end on a positive note. I will be supporting this draft bill, not because I support the government's failed environmental program but because the bill would streamline the administration of an important part of the federal government's work, namely the management of risks and hazards in our natural environment. We all want a healthy environment, and the Conservatives like the idea of things being managed in the most efficient way possible. This modest bill is a step in the right direction.

1290 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Oct/31/22 4:11:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and ask my colleague some questions about his speech today. There are a couple of things. I am really glad that he brought up the environmental record of the Conservatives back in the nineties. It was really strong, and it continues to be probably the strongest Conservative environmental agenda in this country, provincial or federal, ever. It begs the question: Why does the current Conservative Party neglect the environment in its platform and in its lines of questioning? Carbon pricing is world renowned as the foundation of a policy that is forward thinking, and all of my colleagues on the other side in the Conservative Party ran on a platform of carbon pricing in the last election. However, now they seem to be railing against that foundation, despite it being a rather Conservative principle, a market-based instrument and a hallmark of many Conservative governments' platforms around the world. I wonder why the Conservative Party continues to fight against something that is so well founded in economics while pretending to be the party of common sense and to know something about how to manage an economy.

194 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Oct/31/22 4:12:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am actually quite surprised to hear the Liberals keep promoting a price on pollution or carbon tax, because clearly it is failing. If we take a look at the graph, the number keeps going up. The government fails to meet one target after another after another. Now it is going to triple the carbon tax. Is this finally what is going to break the back? Unfortunately it is going to break the backs of many Canadians who need to rely on energy just to live in this large and northern climate.

94 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Oct/31/22 4:12:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove for his speech, in which he referred to Brian Mulroney. I would like to hear him talk about the fact that Mr. Mulroney recently said that he no longer recognizes himself in the new version of the Conservative Party, particularly because it refused to acknowledge climate change.

58 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Oct/31/22 4:13:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I have a great deal of respect for Brian Mulroney. He was a great leader and a great prime minister. I am very proud of the Conservative Party because we have a great tradition here in Canada. I am confident that going forward we are going to form a very good and responsible government.

61 words

All Topics

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

Oct/31/22 4:13:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest. I heard about guns. I heard about gangs. I heard about the carbon tax. I did not hear anything about Bill S-5, though, but that is okay because we have the privilege of being able to discuss and debate, and I thank my colleague. I am thinking that people in Northern Ireland do not have that right now. The DUP refuses to enter Stormont and they are being forced into a new election. This is because the British government is ignoring its obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. To get back to the issue of Bill S-5, I think it is very important that Canada play a role in pushing the British government to recognize that it has international legal obligations. We can do that through trade negotiations. This is what we can do as parliamentarians. Whether the member wants to debate guns, gangs or carbon taxes, we need to be talking about democracy both here and in Ireland.

168 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Oct/31/22 4:14:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I was listening carefully to hear if there was a question there. It was a comment, so I am just going to comment myself. Unfortunately the member opposite did not listen to my speech. Maybe the delivery was very boring; I am not sure, but I actually said quite a bit about Bill S-5. I am saying positive things about it because I think there is good in it. I am saying that I will support this legislation because it is a modest step in the right direction.

91 words

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

Oct/31/22 4:14:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I happen to have worked in the administration under former prime minister Brian Mulroney. I worked on acid rain and worked on the treaty that protected the ozone layer. I can contrast, from first-hand experience, why the current Liberal government is not hitting targets and Brian Mulroney's government did. At no time did we in that government decide to fight acid rain while subsidizing acid rain. At no time did we say that we must make our other colleagues happy and build, for instance, more pollution into our system while trying to fight it. We cannot meet climate targets doing this. I know the members opposite think it is important to build pipelines. We must cancel the Trans Mountain pipeline if we have any interest in making sure our emissions go down. We have to be consistent and fight for what our goals are, one of which is to make sure we have a livable world for our kids. That is not hyperbole. That is what the scientists are warning us about.

176 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Oct/31/22 4:16:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, climate change is a global phenomenon. Canada cannot solve it on its own but we can contribute. We have natural gas, which burns much cleaner than coal. Let us pump more natural gas and deliver it to China and other developing countries so they can get themselves off dirtier coal.

52 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Oct/31/22 4:16:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill S‑5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act. This is a timely bill to modernize the act and cut red tape. After all these years, it is time to revisit the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There are some good amendments here along with some not so good ones that came out of Senate amendments. We are open to this bill, but we are going to want to see a lot of amendments in committee. Changes will have to be made. There are good things in this bill, but not everything in it is good. For now, we are willing to give the bill a chance and let the House debate the issues that have been discussed in the other place so we can come up with a bill that will improve the environment for Canadians. However, this is not groundbreaking environmental legislation. We do still have to agree on it. Yes, this bill does introduce some changes, particularly in terms of administrative matters, and it will facilitate many procedures. However, this is not enough to enable the government to succeed where it has failed since 2015. The government does have a record of setting targets and missing them since 2015. Many politicians are being hypocritical by saying that they are going to fight for the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when they are putting all of this effort and responsibility on the shoulders of Canadians, who will have to pay for the ideological choices of certain politicians. I am saying that and talking about hypocrisy because many people are taking a strong stand and saying that we need to put an end to the use of fossil fuels and plastics, when, unfortunately, most of us will continue to use a lot of these products for as long as necessary. Canada cannot simply put an end to the use of fossil fuels. What we, on this side of the House, think, which seems very reasonable to me, is that as long as we need to use fossil fuels, we should be using energy that comes from Canada. It is as simple as that. Rather than using fossil fuels from countries that have no respect for the environment or for standards, we should be using energy from Canada. However, it seems members would rather give grand speeches and put all of the environmental responsibility off on Canadian citizens. The Liberals' plan is not a plan against climate change, it is a plan to tax Canadians. They want to shift the burden of fighting climate change to taxpayers. Taxpayers are people like my colleagues and me, like the people watching us, or those who do not watch us. Not too many people follow our debates, unfortunately. If that were the case, then we could reach more people more directly, explain our points of view and explain our differences. The only thing the government is proposing at this time is to increase taxes, hoping that that will work. However, that has worked since 2015 and no one has to take it from me. In 2021, Canada's commissioner of the environment said that Canada is going from “failure to failure”. I will quote what Canada's environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco said in 2021: Canada was once a leader in the fight against climate change. However, after a series of missed opportunities, it has become the worst performer of all G7 nations since the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change was adopted in 2015...We can’t continue to go from failure to failure; we need action and results, not just more targets and plans. Since 1988, Canada has set several different climate targets, but none of them have been met. The Liberal government's latest attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions involves imposing a carbon tax on Canadians. One reality that the government has not grasped is that we are currently in the midst of a serious economic crisis. Inflation is at an all-time high of almost 7%. The cost of groceries has increased by 11.4%, the largest increase in the past 40 years. The cost of a litre of gas is at a record high, yet the government is quietly preparing a price increase of its own. Not only is it incapable of fighting this inflation that Canadians are experiencing, but it is also preparing to ask Canadians to pay even more by imposing a carbon tax that it will triple over the coming years. This means that Canadians, who have already been forced to cut back on groceries and make difficult choices because they just cannot afford the things they used to buy or get before to feed their families, will have to make even more difficult choices. There are some expenses that cannot be reduced, such as driving a car to work, and heating a home in a country like Canada, where temperatures can dip under 30 degrees below zero. In 2022, people in Canada should not be talking about turning down their heat to save money so that they can afford to feed their families. That is not something Canadians should even have to think about. In light of all these difficulties and the problems they cause, for example problems that we are hearing about in food banks across Canada, which have a growing number of clients who unfortunately do not have enough money to buy food for themselves at the grocery store in such tough times, surely, this is not the time for the government to tell people to make an extra effort and pay an additional tax so that it can increase its visibility on the international stage by pretending to do something. The figures speak for themselves. The Liberal carbon tax plan did not and will not work. It is going to work even less well because Canadians simply cannot afford this upcoming carbon tax. When I call it a carbon tax, I really mean it is a carbon tax, because this money will be taken from our wallets, from Canadians' wallets, and sent to the government. The members across the way can call it what they will, but when the government takes money out of our pockets, that is called a tax, not a carbon plan. This is a carbon tax and, unfortunately, it has been repeatedly proven that this path will be unsuccessful and that Canada will not reach its targets despite imposing this plan, which demonstrates a real lack of compassion for Canadians. However, we will support Bill S-5, and the reason is that it has nothing to do with that. Bill S‑5 is going to do things like reduce red tape to help companies do business in an increasingly competitive world. Indeed, that is one of the things that we think needs to be done. As I said, we will be looking to make amendments to the bill, looking to improve it, because right now, there are risks associated with some of the amendments proposed by the other place, and we think they may cause even more damage to the Canadian economy rather than help it. Nevertheless, overall, we look forward to seeing Bill S‑5 move forward. If all parties work together, I think we can succeed.

1251 words

All Topics

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

Oct/31/22 4:26:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member said the Conservatives are going to vote in favour of Bill S-5 because it has nothing to do with the carbon tax, yet the member spent a great deal of his time talking about the price on pollution, the carbon tax. There could be a bit of hypocrisy coming from the official opposition. If we think about it, with 338 candidates, part of the Conservative election platform was to support a price on pollution, a carbon tax. When the new Conservative leader was chosen, they flip-flopped on it and said the carbon tax or a price on pollution is a really bad thing. However, the price on pollution only applies to provinces that do not already have a price on pollution. Would the member stand in his place and criticize those provinces that have a price on pollution? Would he say that they should get rid of that price on pollution, or is this standard or a new principle just on the federal backstop plan?

175 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Oct/31/22 4:27:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, when I listen to my colleague speak, there is a word that springs to mind. It is the word “hypocrisy”, which he just mentioned. I remember one thing. In 2015, the Liberal government was elected on a major promise: that it would run very small deficits for three years and then slowly come back to a balanced budget. In his maiden speech, the Prime Minister said that interest rates were low and that they would stay that way for decades. He said that to justify his voracious appetite for spending. That is what I call hypocrisy. I do not think the parliamentary secretary is in any position to lecture me on that score.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Oct/31/22 4:27:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am not mean-spirited. I will not start up again on the subject of hypocrisy, and I will not accuse my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable, whom I like too much, of being a hypocrite. However, there is a sort of hypocrisy in what I have been hearing for a while now. It is hypocritical to not recognize that Canada is an oil-producing country, which is the reason we keep missing our environmental targets year after year. The Conservatives' solution is generally to say that we need to produce more oil. The other atrocious hypocrisy is to lead people to believe that the carbon tax is preventing them from buying food, when we know that the greediest players in the Canadian economy are the big oil companies, which are raking in staggering profits. The Conservatives do not ask them to make an effort. The Conservatives tell them that they will encourage them and find funding for them. Does my colleague not find that hypocritical as well?

174 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Oct/31/22 4:29:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his declaration of love. I found it quite moving, truly. Mostly, however, I was moved by my colleague's ability to say one thing and then its opposite in under 30 seconds. He began his question by saying that he would not be meanspirited and would not talk about hypocrisy. Then he went on to talk about just that: hypocrisy. I am a little perplexed by my colleague's attitude. He wants me to say something that he knows I will not because I am not who he says I am.

98 words

All Topics

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Oct/31/22 4:29:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have been pushing for a long time for more protections for Canadians, a healthy environment and an environmental bill of rights. In this past session my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay put forward again that environmental bill of rights. It is about ensuring that Canadians have the supports to know what is going on. I have been approached by many constituents who are really concerned about what they are seeing even in their own backyards. Could this hon. member talk about whether he is going to support that colleague's push for stronger legislation than we are seeing now, unfortunately, and not just by taking incremental steps toward environmental protections but much bigger ones?

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Oct/31/22 4:30:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, Bill S‑5 recognizes the right to a healthy environment, which the Conservatives fully support. I am from Thetford Mines, where asbestos was produced for about 100 years. For about a century, this industry provided people with a livelihood, which we now know hurt a lot more people on the planet than it helped. Therefore, we were able to recognize that we have to do something. Unfortunately, today, governments do not recognize the liability that exists there. Today, in Thetford Mines, we still live in an environment where there are asbestos mining residues everywhere, and we are asking the government to help us transform our town so we can live in a healthy environment. That is part of what can be done and the specific measures that can be implemented to help us have a healthy environment.

140 words

All Topics