SoVote

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Nov/2/22 5:01:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I will start by wishing you a belated happy birthday. I am pleased to rise on Bill S-5. I have not spoken in the House for a while. I have been too busy covering committees. It is nice to be back. Of all the hundreds of bills I have debated, this one has to have the sexiest title: an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, and to repeal a couple of words that I cannot pronounce Virtual Elimination Act. This bill basically replaces Bill C-28, which the government brought in during a previous Parliament. When introducing this bill, the environment minister talked up the usual propaganda. He talked about Canadians knowing the urgency of the need for this bill and said that the government is responding to this urgency. I have to laugh, because, again, this bill existed in the previous Parliament, but the environment minister was part of the government that called an early election and effectively killed the bill, using crass political opportunism to take advantage of what were favourable polls at the time and also to kill the Winnipeg lab inquiry. Basically, it killed the bill, the same one that is so urgent that the government was seized with it but decided to waste a year by killing it with a cynical election. Generally, as my colleague from Oshawa commented before me, we support Bill S-5. Our chemical management plan is probably the best in the world, along with our chemical engineers, especially in Alberta at DuPont. I used to work in Fort Saskatchewan, at a chemical plant there, with lots of great jobs, lots of very strong investment and high-paying jobs, which is very good for Canada. This bill will also modernize the CEPA and ensure it sticks with a risk-based approach to management, as opposed to the more burdensome red tape and growing hazards-based approach. The bill also recognizes a right to a healthy environment, which I generally support. I mean, who would not support a right to a healthy environment? However, I have to say I have great concerns that it does not define what that is in this bill, and it gives the government two years to do this. The failure to define this issue can have great implications in the future. I am very wary of a bill from the Liberal government that says, “Just trust us on this issue and we will get back to you.” There were five years of consultations on this specific issue, and the government is asking for two more. Of course, I have to say that five years late from this government is not bad. The government is seven years behind on icebreakers; seven years behind on joint supply ships; seven years behind on fighter plane replacements; seven years behind on the offshore patrol ships; six or seven years behind on fixing the Phoenix pay fiasco; years late on buying handguns for our armed forces; years late on the frigate program, which has gone from $92 billion to $306 billion; years late on introducing whistle-blower protection; years late in getting ATIPs processed. I actually have some ATIPs that are so late and so old that they could have gone through a graduate program at university in the time it has taken for them still not to have been brought before this House. That is just to give colleagues the idea. Those are just the examples that I am dealing with out of the operations and estimates committee. I imagine every single person in this House has further examples. While I fear outright malfeasance from the Liberals in leaving this issue open, I generally accept it, knowing that given the incompetence of the government, it will never get done. Speaking of not getting stuff done on the environment, we have had lots of big announcements from the government. As I mentioned, the environment minister, when introducing Bill S-5, talked about the urgency of getting it done. He said Canadians have an urgency; the government has an urgency. The Liberal government talks a lot but delivers very little. At the same time, we have the same environment minister in the paper this week, with a headline saying something about the environment minister slamming oil companies for sitting idle on the climate. That is from the government that killed Bill C-28, this bill, the urgent bill that was before the last Parliament, yet it is blaming the oil companies for not taking action. We have some Alberta oil companies and transmission companies that are working on the environment, not sitting idle. TransCanada PipeLines is investing in solar and wind for both its customers and to power its ops. Enbridge is building green energy to power its products. It is investing in 24 wind farms, five waste-heat recovery facilities and hydrogen facilities as well. These are companies that are investing in green technology, despite the government planning to phase them out and despite getting slammed by the environment minister for doing nothing. Both these companies, as well, have committed to zero carbon emissions by 2050, or neutral anyway. Suncor, CNRL and others, since 2012, have spent $10 billion on green energy R and D. Suncor, CNRL and Synovus have spent over a billion dollars in 2020 alone in green R and D. If members remember, in 2020, during the worst of COVID, oil had a negative price. Oil companies and people had to pay to store the oil. CNRL lost a quarter of a billion dollars in 2020, Imperial Oil lost $1.3 billion and Suncor lost $3.2 billion, yet they were still investing in green energy R and D. Those are the same people the environment minister is slamming for sitting on the sidelines. They are actually getting stuff done while the government is not. That was $5 billion in losses just for those three companies, yet they still invested a billion dollars. It was $10 billion alone in the last decade. This is from an industry that has had to weather the downturn in 2014 in oil, the 2020 crash and the Alberta provincial NDP trying to block the pipeline. The former NDP premier actually went on TV and said that she would block northern gateway. Of course, we also had the Liberal government with Bill C-69, which was the “no more pipelines” bill; Bill C-48; and everything else it has been trying to do to destroy that industry, which is investing in green R and D. The environment minister attacks the companies for not doing enough, but they are doing their part for Canada. I would suggest to the environment minister, when he attacks these people for not doing enough, that people in glass houses should not be throwing rocks, or in his case people in glass greenhouses should not be throwing rocks. I am going to look at the minister's own department results. These are numbers from the Treasury Board. These are not my numbers. These are not made-up numbers. This is from GC InfoBase, from the departmental results. In 2021, the environment minister achieved, with his department, 14% of its targets. That is one out of every seven. In 2020, it was 27%. In 2019, it was 23%. In the department's best year in the last three years, it barely got to 25% or one-quarter of its targets. The minister has the gall to attack Alberta's oil industry for not doing its part. He attacks Canada's largest exporter of goods. The minister attacks the largest industrial employer in Canada of indigenous people. The largest investor in green R and D in the private sector, he attacks for not doing enough, yet he presides over the abysmal failure in his own department of just 14%. I am wondering if the environment minister would have stopped at scaling just 14% of the stairs at the CN Tower when he was illegally doing his protest and consider 14% a success. There are other failures from the current government. The Auditor General reports in the “Greening Government Strategy” report that the government has failed on its results. Those are the exact words from the Auditor General. The report states: ...government decision makers, parliamentarians, and Canadians do not...know...whether the government will meet its...target. It actually gets worse. The Treasury Board requires, as part of the greening government strategy, that assistant deputy ministers sign off on the integrity of the government's emissions reduction reports. Seventy-four per cent of the bureaucrats have refused to sign off on their mission targets. We will support Bill S-5, but we actually need action and not just talk from the government.

1481 words

All Topics

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.)

Nov/2/22 5:12:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians have seen the impacts of climate change first-hand. We have seen the impact of what happens to our communities, which have been devastated by flooding, fire, and so on and so forth. I sat here and listened to the member opposite talk about failures of the government to promote the ongoing destruction of the environment. I wonder how this member reconciles his views with the fact that people like Preston Manning have come forward and said that carbon pricing is a good idea. Stephen Harper, the godfather of the Conservative Party, agrees that carbon pricing is a good idea. What is the Conservative Party's policy on climate change? What is its plan to stop climate change? I would love to know.

127 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Nov/2/22 5:13:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Vancouver, so it is nice to chat with someone from there. It is funny he talks about what we would do. What we would not do is put out government emissions reports that our own bureaucrats refused to sign off on and refused to state, yes, those were correct. We would not do that. We would have results achieved. We would not sit by and congratulate ourselves for failing 86% of our targets. Those targets talked about engaging indigenous people in consultations on prosperity on resource development. We would get stuff done. We would not just sit there. We would not fly across the country from Vancouver to Ottawa and then complain about carbon emissions.

121 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Nov/2/22 5:13:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my Conservative colleague shared that reminder about what led up to this bill, about how we got from Bill C‑28 to Bill S‑5, and about how so much time was wasted on what was really a totally pointless election. As I see it, Bill S‑5 has three elements at its core. They are laid out in clause 2. These three elements are as follows: considering the exposure of vulnerable populations to toxic substances, considering the cumulative effects of toxic substances, and requiring labelling to indicate the risks posed by all products containing toxic substances. These three elements are worded differently in the current version of this bill. Does my colleague agree with these elements?

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Nov/2/22 5:15:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I will be supporting this bill. There are a lot of good points in it. There has been some engagement with the industry, which has commented on what it liked. There are some issues we will be seeking amendments to in committee. Yes, while we will be supporting the bill, there are some amendments we do need to consider.

64 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Nov/2/22 5:15:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, while listening to my Conservative colleague, I am reminded the Conservative Party has come a long way since Stephen Harper called the climate crisis a socialist plot. They are now at least acknowledging it is real. There has been alarming information come out in the last couple of days that strikes a great deal of consternation as to whether we will actually be able to keep climate change and the temperature rise below 1.5°C. In fact, we are now looking at a 2°C temperature increase. However, the government, while claiming to care about the climate crisis, has purchased and is expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline, approved the Bay du Nord project and is also talking about expanding LNG exports. Does my hon. colleague think Canada can meet our Paris accord commitments and reduce carbon emissions in this country? Can we still, at the same time, pursue all of those fossil fuel expansions in this country?

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Nov/2/22 5:16:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I recognize their ideological base wants to shut down our oil and gas. Our reality is these same issues he has brought forward are the same drivers of our economy and the same drivers of our prosperity that allow us to enjoy the living we have. To move away from this would strip our economy of tens of billions of dollars. The Auditor General report on the just transition alone states that if we did this, it would be as devastating to Alberta as the cod fishery closures. We are not ready to sacrifice the livelihood of Albertans and many other Canadians for their ideology.

107 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Nov/2/22 5:17:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate this afternoon. I thank my colleague from Edmonton West for his remarks. I do appreciate them. The member for Vancouver Kingsway talked about a socialist plot. I think there are some socialist plots, but I do not think they involve the environment. They are more or less about wealth redistribution than anything else. The members are quite cagey on the NDP side, so I look forward to answering questions from them after this speech. A member from Vancouver on the Liberal side asked what the Conservatives' plan is when it comes to the environment. I would put this to him. Several private members' bills were put forward last session before an unnecessary election was called. One of them was to ban the dumping of raw sewage into the lakes, rivers and oceans, to make sure we could clean up the St. Lawrence River. That private member's bill was put forward by my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle and only God knows why, but the Liberals voted against it. They voted against the ban on dumping raw sewage into our pristine lakes, rivers and oceans in Canada. When they talk about the environment and what would be the Conservatives' plan, one would think a very good start would be to ensure that we do not put pollutants into our water systems. That would be a rational conversation and something that any government should do. We have the capacity. We have the Liberals' failed Infrastructure Bank, which could have put money into making sure the municipalities had the money to upgrade their infrastructure so we would not be putting raw sewage into our water systems in this country. That would be a start. If the member asks the question again, I may have tripped on the answer to it already. A bill that was brought forward by the member for York—Simcoe in the last Parliament, and which was part of the Conservative campaign plan, was to make sure that we stop dumping plastics in other countries and to make sure we look after our own waste. Once again, unknown to many in this chamber, the Liberals voted against that private member's bill brought forward by the Conservatives to make sure we have a cleaner and greener environment to be passed on to the next generation. A couple of those private members' bills we put forward in the last session before the election of 2021 would have definitely been concrete measures to make sure the environment is cleaner. I would like to have that conversation and put on the record that there have been several measures we have looked at as a party to ensure our environment stays clean. As my friend from Edmonton West said, we will be supporting the bill going to committee for amendments. Because the CEPA has not been amended since 1999, I think there are some things that need to be changed. We look forward to having that conversation at committee. Another thing we have asked our Liberal counterparts is what their environmental plan is. The bill proposes to change CEPA, but what is their plan to ensure that emissions go down? They have a carbon tax, but that definitely is not an environmental plan. It is a tax scheme. Under the current government, emissions have continued to increase. The Liberal government has brought forward policies recently, such as, the reduction in fertilizer use on farms across the country, which is not an environmental plan either. That is just a plan to hamstring our producers, ranchers and farmers even more when they are trying to feed the world. That is not a climate plan. We would ask our Liberal colleagues across the way that same question. When I talk to residents in Saskatchewan and around the country, they want to know what the benefit of the fertilizer reduction plan is. One of the biggest things I am asked is if it will result in less food in Canada. On the flip side, if the Liberals want our farmers and producers to continue to produce the same amount of food with less fertilizer, they are going to have to use more arable land. This would result in more machinery being used and higher fuel consumption because more land has to be used to produce the same amount of food. A lot of the time when we hear about the environmental policies and actions of the Liberals, they have some unintended consequences, because they either have not done their homework or they do not understand what it takes to produce food. When I see the environment being impacted in different ways when the Liberals bring forward these policies, that is what I like to bring to the table. Maybe they do not understand what it takes to actually produce the food that ends up in grocery stores across the country. Another thing I would say about our environmental plan is the Conservatives also put forward a policy called the clean air act. For all of these things, we have taken steps to try to ensure we have a cleaner environment for the next generation. I have three young children, and I think everyone in this chamber wants to ensure they have the opportunity to enjoy a clean environment, just as we did growing up as children. I grew up on a family farm, and we took the sustainability of our farm very seriously. If we did not have grassland, our cattle could not be fed. If we did not have the proper soil and nutrients in our hay lands to produce hay, we did not have feed to feed the dairy cows. I grew up on a dairy farm, so we had to make sure there were nutrients in the soil, that we conserved water and that we had runoff. Tree rows would collect the snow so there would be runoff. Producers have been environmental stewards for generations, and it is not because of any government policy—

1014 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/2/22 5:23:39 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

15 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Nov/2/22 5:23:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. colleague from Regina—Lewvan, but in the last debate on Bill S-5, the great majority of the speeches had no connection to Bill S-5. I rose on a point of order several times at that time, and I reference at this point Standing Order 11(2), which says that when the attention of the House is called to the conduct of a member whose presentation is irrelevant or repetitious, the member can be asked by the Speaker to discontinue the speech, and if the member continues, the Speaker shall name the member. It is a serious standing order saying that speeches should be relevant. I have been listening carefully. I have heard a lot about how the Conservatives feel about the Liberals' environmental record, much of which I will agree with, but this debate is on Bill S-5. I feel rather guilty when Liberals ask me why I opposed shutting down debate. Debate has to be about the subject before us, based on the Standing Orders.

177 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/2/22 5:24:39 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for that intervention. I remind all members of the House that when we are debating, we should stay relevant to the bill at hand. We do give a lot of leeway when it comes to members getting all of their thoughts out. I will say to the member for Regina—Lewvan that maybe with the three minutes and 40 seconds left in his time, he can get back to the bill. The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan

83 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

Nov/2/22 5:25:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this time and am glad that I have three minutes left. I actually feel sorry for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who would not understand that the environment and agriculture go hand in hand and that talking about what we do in agriculture to make sure there is a sustainable environment does actually pertain to the bill. My sympathies go out to her for not having been on a farm and not realizing how important agriculture will be to a clean environment going forward. This leads me to the next—

99 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/2/22 5:25:34 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

15 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Nov/2/22 5:25:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this is the treatment I got in the last debate, particularly from a number of members who attacked me for raising our rules. I know a lot about farms. I am from a rural riding. The hon. member may not know how many dairy farms are in my riding, but this is not about me. This is about trying to listen to the Standing Orders so that this place will work better.

77 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/2/22 5:26:02 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member again for her intervention. I thought I made myself clear on this, but I will let the member for Regina—Lewvan finish.

27 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

Nov/2/22 5:26:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that interjection. I know that my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands knows the rules very well, and I appreciate her constantly trying to remind everyone how much better she is at knowing the rules. I appreciate her continuous interjections as well as her thoughts. I will wrap up with a few comments about the environment. Once again, as I put forward in the conversation, the Conservatives have had the opportunity to put forward bills that would help the environment and make the environment cleaner. My friend from Lake Simcoe put one forward, and my friend for Regina—Qu'Appelle has put forward bills. When I look at Bill S-5 on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it has not been amended since 1999, to put that on the record. We will be talking about it more, along with amendments, in committee when it goes to committee. With that, I am very happy to answer any questions members may have on Bill S-5. I cannot wait to hear what my friend from Kingston and the Islands has to ask, because I see he is waving his hand. I will not make him wait any longer so he can take to his feet.

208 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Nov/2/22 5:27:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, yes, I have a question for the member, because I always get a kick out of when the Conservative plan for dealing with the environment is to talk about dumping sewage into our rivers and lakes. It is a very important issue; I will not dispute that, but I will forgive the member if he does not understand how the sewage system works. Basically, we have pipes in a municipality, and they all lead to a pool. When that pool fills up, we have to do something with the water. Unfortunately, the legacy of the way municipalities have been created over the last number of decades and centuries in our country is that the stormwater is connected with the sewage water, so when we have increased storm events, those pools fill up faster. There are various different ways that we can control and deal with that problem, and this is what I would like the member to comment on. We could have grey infrastructure solutions, which basically would be to build larger tanks to hold and deal with the increased flow. We could have green infrastructure that tries to localize the sewage more individually, to deal with it before putting it into this network of sewers and pipes that lead to this pool. I know the Conservatives are against dumping the sewage, and they should be, as we all should be, so I am wondering what their solution is to deal with it. Can he propose a solution?

250 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley

Nov/2/22 5:29:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the presentations of my friend across the way. One thing I put forward, if he was listening to my speech and its relevance to this, was to use the infrastructure bank to ensure municipalities got some of that money so they could upgrade their infrastructure. What I would not have done is use an omnibus budget bill to make sure Montreal could continue to dump millions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence for another 10 to 15 years without talking to anyone about that. I appreciate the lesson in municipal infrastructure. I live in a municipality as well, and I thank him very much for that, but there is a way the federal government had the capacity to help municipalities make sure they could use that money and not dump raw sewage into our lakes, rivers and oceans. I would say he should take that back to his cabinet and to his Minister of Infrastructure and say that instead of the money leaving here and maybe building pipelines in China, maybe they should build some water infrastructure in Canada.

187 words

All Topics

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

Nov/2/22 5:30:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member shared his views on so many topics, but specifically to Bill S-5, a number of members of Parliament have suggested that the reference to plastics under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is tantamount to a ban on plastics. I just want to make sure that, in reading the bill, the hon. member will agree with me that Bill S-5 would not ban any plastics. Bill S-5 would create the ability for the federal government to move ahead on existing commitments, and not all plastics are on the radar for any regulation. Only a very small number, and far too small a variety of single-use plastic items are slated for regulation. The bill would create the opportunity only for future regulations, and no one is proposing banning all plastics.

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley

Nov/2/22 5:31:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conversation, but the conversations we have had in our caucus are to the effect that the legislation would heavily regulate, but not ban, the plastics. I appreciate my hon. colleague's taking the time to ask such a thoughtful question, as I always appreciate her interjections.

51 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 123