SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 121

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 31, 2022 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 121 - Oct/31/22
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)
  • Oct/31/22 1:26:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-5 
Madam Speaker, I think we have a problem. There is a flaw in the Environment Canada framework because the purpose of the bill is unclear. In the beginning, 30 years ago, it was important to maintain the list of toxic substances set out in the act. The Supreme Court of Canada rendered a famous ruling in that regard in R. v. Hydro-Québec. It is clear from that Supreme Court ruling that we need to continue with the criminal jurisdiction approach. In order to do that, we need to protect the list of toxic substances and not divide it in two because that would make this legislation more vulnerable when the courts have to enforce it. Can my colleague comment on my theory that this poses a serious risk?
132 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 121 - Oct/31/22
Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)
  • Oct/31/22 5:14:19 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-5 
Madam Speaker, one of the things Bill S‑5 sets out to amend and improve is the list of toxic substances. I think that is important. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that, especially since the goal, at the end of the day, is to ensure a healthier environment in which people, and especially businesses, stop polluting the air, as is the case in Rouyn‑Noranda and in my riding. That will reduce the number of lawsuits against these companies, as well as against the government if it turns a blind eye.
100 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 121 - Oct/31/22
Mr. Ted Falk
  • Oct/31/22 5:15:06 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-5 
Madam Speaker, I think an important part of this bill looks at the list of toxins that need to be examined. These things are very important. However, we need to make sure the toxins on the list of banned substances are there for a reason. The study needs to be done and the science needs to be researched. I am troubled a bit by the part of the bill that says any person at any time can demand that the Government of Canada examine any substance for toxicity. That is one thing that is too ambiguous. We are going to end up with a whole bunch of lawsuits, as the member alluded to. It is probably frivolous work for the government, and I think it needs to be more pointed and more direct. Are we against toxins polluting our environment? Absolutely, we are.
143 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 121 - Oct/31/22
Mr. Larry Maguire
  • Oct/31/22 6:33:07 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-5 
Mr. Speaker, the bill is before the House. Many of us on the Conservative side of the House have stated we are in favour of the bill. I even pointed out in my presentation the types of witnesses that I hope go before the committee when it is discussing Bill S-5, this environmental management bill. None of us wants toxic substances. I pointed out very clearly in my presentation tonight what is required in the agricultural industry to keep it vibrant. There have been huge technological changes and improvements made in the environmental use of products in the agricultural industry, and I use it as an example only because it is one I am familiar with. The same thing applies in forestry, mining and many other industries as well.
130 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border