44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 31, 2022 11:00AM
- Oct/31/22 12:10:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, the government widely promoted this bill as a modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that would finally grant people a right to a healthy environment. When the government gave a briefing on its bill, civil servants were asked if the bill would truly give a right to a healthy environment. Their response was simply “no”, that will not be the case. It might happen when legislation is implemented more than two years from now, but for the time being, it will not.
Does the member agree with me that it is unfortunate that the Liberal Party is engaging in political marketing with this right to a healthy environment when, in fact, that will not happen when the bill is passed?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 12:11:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I think the member highlights an important point. I have said often that the only thing the Liberals are good at is politics. They have shown time and time again that they are failures when it comes to policy, implementation and ultimately governing this country.
When it comes to their record on the environment, it is deplorable. They have never met a target. They have missed virtually every emissions target they have ever implemented. They have a tax plan, not an environment plan, and are quick to demonize anybody who points out the facts in this regard.
Canadians should have the right to a healthy environment, but that includes being able to ensure we have an industry and technology that allow for that to not only be the case here in Canada. Canada can and should be a leader in the world when it comes to ensuring that the entire planet has the tools, resources and ability to have a healthy environment.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 12:24:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech.
Strengthening environmental protection is a good thing. We are not against virtue. However, based on what my colleague said earlier, I am wondering whether this is just wishful thinking. Is there not something else we could focus on to ensure a healthy environment after this bill is passed?
What commitments could the Conservatives make to improve the environment for all of their constituents?
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 12:28:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, just to be clear with the member, I said that the right to a healthy environment, as it is embedded and updated in the legislation, is unenforceable because it is in the preamble. It gives no force of law, essentially. Someone cannot go to court and make a claim before a judge that this is somehow an enforceable right. It is not in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not a right that someone can make a claim against.
In terms of enforceability, this is already enforced in the industry. The industry in Canada is already trying to meet these expectations. This legislation will impact hundreds of thousands of people who work across the different sectors. All of them are trying to do the right thing by the environment and also by their community members. Nobody is out there with the goal of polluting unnecessarily or of dropping toxic chemicals into the environment. They know this legislation exists and they are trying to meet its expectations, but inserting it into the preamble is what makes it unenforceable.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 12:41:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I just want to add some comments to the member's concerns around how this idea of the right for Canadians to live in a healthy and clean environment would be approached.
In this bill that we are debating today, Bill S-5, the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act would only extend those rights as far as the bill goes. It would basically be around toxins, air pollution and water pollution. The federal government has a wider mandate than that. We have a lot of environmental legislation on the books, including the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act.
Would the member agree that we need to extend that right to the entire federal mandate?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 1:14:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am rather excited to rise today. It is always a pleasure to talk about the environment in the House, especially since I was a member of an ECOSPHERE fair on the environment for more than 10 years.
I ended up there when I was working for Christian Ouellet, whose work inspired me. I tip my hat to him. As an MP, he was the Bloc Québécois deputy critic for the environment and natural resources. I did a lot of research for him for studies on all sorts of environmental aspects when I was working on Parliament Hill. Whenever we talk about the environment, the diversity of what we might find always strikes us. It affects so many aspects of our lives.
When I agreed to be an administrator for the ECOSPHERE fair at the time, I found it really interesting how that helped me see the impact that common household items and personal use items have on the environment. There is a lot of talk about microplastics, construction and renovation materials, what we use for transportation, as well as all the new technology for green vehicles. This touches a very large area of activity. It also gave me the opportunity, over many years, to have many conversations and to attend many conferences on the topic.
That said, today I rise to speak to Bill S-5 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I will start by saying that we are in favour of the principle of this bill. However, the Bloc Québécois deems that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and our Quebec territory. That was brought up earlier during questions and comments, and my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île also said it, rather eloquently: On April 13, 2022, parliamentarians from all parties in Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asserting the primacy of Quebec’s jurisdiction over the environment. Elected representatives in Quebec unanimously oppose any federal government intervention in environmental matters in Quebec.
The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position and strongly advocates for the interests and values of Quebec in the federal political arena. For us, that is really crucial, particularly as we have nothing to learn from the federal government when it comes to the environment. Quebec really has a great reputation, as I said. I realized that when working for the former member for Brome—Missisquoi, a great environmentalist who travelled internationally to represent Quebec in green architecture. We even have an international reputation when it comes to environmental matters.
That said, under our current laws, the federal government has certain environmental protection responsibilities. The Bloc Québécois will do everything in its power to ensure that the federal government properly carries out its duties. That obviously involves updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. This is a necessary legislative modernization, and we will give it all the attention it deserves.
We want to point out that Bill S-5 does not constitute a comprehensive review of the CEPA. In fact, not all parts of the act are covered by Bill S-5. The bill includes many elements that are particularly technical, but I will not go there today. Those elements merit serious study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I think that my colleague from Repentigny, who is on that committee, will do excellent work, supported by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. Together, I am sure they will do a great job on this file. We really want those members to do this work as part of the committee to ensure that the modernized law will truly allow the federal government to fulfill its environmental protection responsibilities, while respecting Quebec’s environmental sovereignty.
The Bloc Québécois has been critical of some of the partisan claims inserted into Bill S-5. We are not fooled by the Liberal government's claim that modernizing the act creates the right to a healthy environment. That is absolutely not the case, even according to the senior public servants who presented Bill S-5 to parliamentarians when it was tabled. First, it should be noted that all the sections pertaining to the right to a healthy environment and to vulnerable populations are found in CEPA's preamble. Their scope is that of the act itself. They have no impact on other Canadian laws. While the bill would add the protection of this right to the federal government's mission, the proposed amendments would not necessarily create a true fundamental right to live in a healthy environment, although that is the crucial point and what more and more people are calling for.
If the government were serious about creating a new right and had any political courage at all, it would propose that the federation partners hold a round of constitutional negotiations to include this right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Since 2006, Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has stated: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved”. Once again, Quebec is a trailblazer.
Unlike CEPA, the Quebec charter, in Quebec's political context, is quasi-constitutional in scope. This is not insignificant. Clearly, Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect the fundamental rights of Quebeckers.
When it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. Just look at Bay du Nord, for one thing. Look at all the money the federal government is putting into the oil sands. Look at any number of issues. While Quebec is trying move away from oil, put money into a green transition, and support workers, the federal government continues to invest in all these fossil fuels.
Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois does want to work with all parliamentarians on chemicals management, the list of toxic substances, improved risk management accountability, comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects of substances, and mandatory labelling requirements to ensure that the repealed act reflects, to the greatest possible extent, the recommendations of stakeholders such as environmental health protection groups and chemical industry partners.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be absolutely vigilant in its study of the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. Bill S‑5, which amends the 1999 Canadian act, makes related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and repeals the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Marc Gold and went through first reading on February 9, 2022. It is now at second reading, which began on March 1, 2022.
Perhaps the bill does seek to strengthen environmental protection for a healthier Canada, but as I said, it lacks teeth. It lacks something that Quebec has already. The bill is identical to Bill C-28, which was introduced by the environment minister and received first reading on April 13, 2021, before dying on the Order Paper on August 15, 2021, when the 43rd Parliament was dissolved. That brings us back to the impacts of the 2021 election. How many bills died on the Order Paper just for vote-seeking reasons? This bill did, but many others did too. I have risen in the House often to speak out against that election, which traded four quarters for a dollar at a great cost to taxpayers.
If the government were serious about its desire to get things done, it would not always be holding up the work. In August 2020, when it decided to prorogue the House, many reports were shelved, including the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on how the COVID-19 pandemic affected women. The 2021 election also resulted in a lot of reports being shelved. We see that there have been delays in far too many areas.
The bill is identical to Bill C‑28, as I said. This bill, which amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is divided into 12 parts. We could come back to it in a much more precise way, but it is also important to mention that in 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development published a report containing 87 recommendations, including the following: recognize and enforce the right to a healthy environment, address exposures of vulnerable populations to toxic substances, and recognize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government dragged its feet on this UN declaration for far too long. Canada was one of the last countries to sign on. It is really sad.
My time is running out. I had so much more to say, but I will just add that on the weekend, I met with Thibault Rehn, from Vigilance OGM. He was proud of the work the Bloc Québécois is doing in denouncing all this and calling for better traceability.
He also told me how proud it makes him to hear us talk about what we eat, what we put in our bodies, the work of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the work of the Bloc Québécois in general when it comes to the environment. I realize that I get fired up when I talk about the environment, I could have said a lot more—
1633 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 1:24:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, some members, from the Bloc in particular, make reference to provincial and national jurisdictional responsibilities. I think for some issues, it does not matter what part of the region we are from. We recognize that different levels of government need to come together for our communities to benefit as a whole. The environment is one of those issues.
I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on how important it is, whether we are in a rural municipality in Quebec, in the city of Montreal, in the province or in Ottawa, for us to work together for the betterment of Canada and for the environment?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 2:39:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the minister could have said that he acknowledges the UN report and that he will not approve any more oil and gas projects. At the very least, he could have said that he would not fast-track them. Instead, he went on television last week to explain how he, as environment minister, could advise oil and gas companies to help them get through the assessment process faster.
In the midst of the climate crisis, is it the role of an environment minister to help the oil and gas industry get projects approved?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 3:45:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is passionate about the environment. I have witnessed her at OGGO.
This is the first time I am rising since learning of the passing of the Tla-o-qui-aht Nation hereditary chief, Muuchinink, also known as Bruce Frank. I would like to pay my condolences to his wife Iris, their daughter and all Tla-o-qui-aht and Nuu-chah-nulth people and the surrounding communities, because this is a big loss to our community. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to recognize our Tyee Ha'wiih.
I know that indigenous peoples are often in pollution hot spots and the bill would not do enough to address that. Maybe my colleague can speak about the importance of something that Muuchinink cared deeply about. He worried about our coastal waters and the environment and the spread of polystyrene. He also worried about the government's lack of regulations around polystyrene and that it needed to do more to protect our environment. Maybe the member could speak to that.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 3:57:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I indicated that we are supporting this bill going to the committee stage, which we believe is very important and worthwhile.
As far as policy, I do not think the government has a plan for the environment. The government has a plan for taxation. That is exactly what the government has. It has not hit even one single target that it has been boasting about for the last seven years and beyond.
The Liberals should give us a break and stop questioning others when they are not performing on their own. Let us see the results they could generate as a government—
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 3:58:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I am hoping my colleague can explain something.
He mentioned in his speech that he is very concerned about water quality, air quality and the environment. That sounds wonderful, but his words ring hollow when I think of his party's desire to expand the oil industry. The Conservative Party may not have the best record when it comes to the environment.
Can my colleague explain how he reconciles these two things?
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 3:59:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, on the same note, there is going to be a time, as I indicated in my speech, when we all have concerns about the environment. No one has more concerns than others in that competition toward a better environment, clean water.
I am surprised to hear the question from Quebec, where sewage is being dropped in the rivers in Quebec. Where is the Bloc Québécois on that? Why have they never raised that in the House of Commons? Why are they trying to question the Conservative Party on our vision and our belief in a better environment, cleaner water and cleaner air?
108 words
All Topics
- 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/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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
