SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 197 - May/15/23

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

May/15/23 5:31:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I will start with agreeing with the hon. member that the energy sector is extremely important in our country. We need the energy. What we do not want is pollution, particularly carbon dioxide pollution. CEPA is used to manage greenhouse gases and has been absolutely critical in putting a price on pollution, which the hon. member campaigned for in the last election. His position seems to have changed. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills made it a centrepiece of his Conservative leadership campaign. Stephen Harper used to support a price on pollution, until he did not. Can the member explain his flip-flop and the stark fact that he has switched his position?

116 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/15/23 5:32:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I have not switched my position on this issue. I have been quite clear on it. If members think otherwise, they are welcome to search the record to see if they can identify instances where I have said the opposite—

43 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 5:32:35 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/15/23 5:32:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, does the member's party platform count?

9 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 5:32:43 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. I would ask the hon. member, if he has questions and comments, to wait until the appropriate time. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

33 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/15/23 5:32:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I doubt it—

6 words

Doubt
8212

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 5:32:58 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/15/23 5:33:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I think being a Speaker is really tough, and I want to thank you for such a wise intervention there. I really appreciate it.

26 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 5:33:08 p.m.
Watch

That was not a point of order, but I greatly appreciate the hon. member's comment. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

25 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/15/23 5:33:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, sometimes we have people in the House casting swine before pearls. The government's approach to environmental policy is to say that increasing taxes on Canadians is going to solve the problem. I think we should look at the consequence of that approach to see if it is working. Again, I recommended looking at consequence as a means of evaluating the value of a policy. The government has not met any of its environmental targets. People are paying more. Canadians are struggling with affordability, and the government is failing to meet its environmental objectives. The only case where we have seen improvements in its environmental performance was when it tanked the economy during COVID. We need a strategy that can improve the environment while having a strong economy, and the government has not found that approach.

138 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/15/23 5:34:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, because he touched on the fact that all the parties here have had sometimes similar and sometimes different positions on the environment. When we worked on Bill S-5, the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois all had more or less similar amendments because we relied on experts from all the environmental groups. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against the suggestions we put forward based on the input of environmental groups. We feel that it was the industry's ideas that prevailed. Yes, it is important to listen to the industry because it has experts, but it is also important to have representatives from environmental groups who are also experts. Was too much emphasis put on the industry's agenda in our analysis of Bill S-5?

147 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/15/23 5:35:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I was trying to find a great quote from the Seven Pillars of Wisdom on experts. I may refer to it later. Suffice it to say, members will obviously, in the committee process, bring in different witnesses. There will be different experts who work in different roles and wear different hats. Some may be involved in environmental advocacy organizations and have one perspective, while others may work for industry and obviously have another perspective informed by their expertise and the context in which they work. I will go back to the comments I made in my overall remarks that we need to recognize the balance required in environmental policy and consider the policies we pursue in the context of pursuing overall human flourishing.

125 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/15/23 5:36:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it sounds as though the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is supporting the bill, which is good, because I know in 2017, the Conservatives wrote a dissenting report in which they expressed opposition to this idea of the right to a healthy environment. My question is around labelling. It seems like a big missed opportunities in this bill would be to have clauses requiring the labelling of products that contain toxic substances, including personal care products that contain substances with a risk of causing cancer, reproductive harm and other such harms. Does he agree that this is a missed opportunity in the bill we are debating?

110 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/15/23 5:36:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I think the member is onto something, that people should be able to access information about the risks the products present to them. I also wonder if we need to have a broader conversation about labelling and how that information is presented. I can recall various debates where people wanted all kinds of information and more detailed labels, but that can present certain challenges and barriers when those labels are not read in detail anyway. Therefore, we would need to have a conversation about QR code labelling and other tools where people can access that information easily, but it does not require the constant reprinting of labels in response to new information. That is a broader conversation, but it is an important area to discuss.

127 words

Mr. Peter Schiefke (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.)

May/15/23 5:37:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of Bill S-5, one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation to come before the House of Commons. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is a vital piece of legislation that regulates the products we use every day in Canada. From food packaging to the personal care products we put on our bodies to our children's toys, CEPA has provided the regulations to further protect Canadians from exposure to toxic substances and keep all of us and our collective environment healthy since it came into force in 1999. We received submissions from all across the country with regard to the modernization of this act. That is why I want to thank so many people for participating in the drafting of the bill that is now before us. In particular, I would like to thank Lisa Gue from the David Suzuki Foundation, Cassie Barker from Environmental Defence Canada, Jennifer Beeman from Breast Cancer Action Quebec, Jane McArthur from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Aaron Freeman, the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie and Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the hon. members for Winnipeg South, Lac-Saint-Louis, Repentigny, Victoria and Saanich—Gulf Islands, and the senators who worked so hard to ensure that Bill S-5 came before the House. Bill S‑5 strengthens Canada's environmental protection measures for individuals, families and communities across the country. It helps to better preserve the measures that we all need to live a healthy life. It protects the water we drink and better regulates the products that we use every day as Canadians. Bill S‑5 is a necessary and long-awaited update of CEPA that guarantees that the act can continue to do in 2023 what it was implemented to do in 1999, and that is to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians. As the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I consider it an honour to have worked on the modernization of CEPA with the current Minister of Natural Resources and member for North Vancouver when he was minister of environment and climate change. This bill began as Bill C‑28. Most of the elements that we worked on at the time, not to mention the amazing work of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, including the right to a healthy environment, the assessment of the combined effects of substances and the improvement of transparency about consumer goods, are still included and even reinforced in Bill S‑5. It has been a quarter of a century since CEPA was last updated. As such, many improvements and modifications were necessary. We need only think of the changes in our society we have experienced over the last 25 years, too many to reference, unfortunately, in the short time allotted to me today, to better understand the need for the many key improvements to CEPA included in Bill S-5. I would like to share a select few in my remarks, beginning with an acknowledgement in the preamble of the bill that all Canadians have a right to live in a healthy environment. Countries around the world, in fact, are acknowledging the relationship between a healthy environment and our human rights. In fact, on June 28 of last year, the UN General Assembly adopted a historic resolution declaring that access to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a universal human right. For the first time in our federal law, Bill S-5 would recognize the right to a healthy environment in Canada, and our country will join 156 fellow members of the United Nations who have done the same in some way, shape or form. While including the right to a healthy environment represents a historic step for Canada, our government will work hard to secure these rights through a robust evaluation framework and regulations, which we have committed to creating with input from Canadians over the next couple of years. Everything that follows in this newly strengthened CEPA flows from this acknowledgement, including the second aspect of the bill that I would like to speak to, that being the better management of chemicals in Canada, aimed at reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals for all Canadians. Currently, CEPA uses a science-based approach to evaluate over 4,300 chemicals and reduces the number of harmful chemicals that Canadians encounter in their everyday lives. Canadians have benefited from our strong leadership on the risk assessment and risk management for chemicals. For example, there are chemicals like BPA, which is a known hormone disruptor that used to be found in bottles for infants. High exposure to BPA can adversely affect the liver, the kidneys, fertility and the brain development of newborn infants. A risk assessment through the chemicals management plan led to a change in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act that made it illegal to manufacture, import, advertise or sell bottles that contained this product in Canada. Canada has worked with industry to successfully phase out the use of BPA-containing packaging for liquid infant formula products available for sale in Canada. Since then, Canadian parents have worried less, knowing that the feeding bottles they are using to nurse their newborn child are free from this dangerous chemical. Working with Canadians to publish an updated chemicals management priorities plan in Bill S-5 is critical to protecting Canadians against the exponential increase in the volume and concentration of chemicals entering our environment. In addition to an updated chemicals management priorities plan, proposed subsection 75.1(1) of Bill S-5 requires the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment to list substances capable of becoming toxic. The inclusion of this clause in CEPA would help address the problem of regrettable substitutions and deter manufacturers from replacing the use of one equally hazardous chemical for another. These updates to this bill, among others, would weed out toxins in our products at the source, so that Canadians do not have to at their local grocery or hardware store. Another key improvement to CEPA in Bill S-5 is the incorporation of cumulative effects assessments. Why is this important? It is quite simple. The pace and scale at which new chemicals are being produced and added to our products and environment are astounding. Since 1950, chemical production has increased fiftyfold, and today there are approximately 90,000 chemicals used domestically in Canada and the United States. The largest concentrations of toxic substances are often found in the cheapest products. The reality is that with the sheer quantity of chemicals now present in our everyday lives, it has become an ever so daunting task to fully appreciate and identify hazards. Most Canadians do not have the time or expertise to determine which products, combined with other products, could be dangerous and more and more are counting on us, as their federally elected representatives, to ensure that we are doing this imperative work for them and that the laws and regulations in place are strong enough to protect them and their loved ones. In the current version of CEPA, assessments are conducted on the singular impacts of each chemical individually. The significant change included in Bill S-5 would address the cumulative effects on human health and the environment that may result from exposure to the substance in combination with exposure to other substances and would require cumulative effects to be considered in the risk assessment through CEPA when information is available. Another important aspect of this bill is the improvements to CEPA that address social justice when it comes to our health and our environment and recognize it is intrinsic to environmental protection. Bill S-5 explicitly requires that the federal government consider vulnerable populations in the assessment of toxic substances. Social challenges in indigenous, low-income and racialized communities are further exacerbated by environmental ones when a landfill, a water treatment facility or a chemical plant is located in their backyards. This change to CEPA would help ensure that the health of vulnerable communities is considered through the implementation of CEPA regulation. As I mentioned in committee and in the House, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the most important piece of legislation that most Canadians know very little about, yet it has been protecting the environment every day for decades. With the changes proposed in Bill S‑5, it will continue to protect the environment and all Canadians for decades to come. By passing this bill, we parliamentarians are clearly affirming that their health and safety will always be our priority. I look forward to joining all members in this House in voting in favour of Bill S-5, moving it to the next level of our parliamentary process and, finally, ushering in a new era of environmental protection in Canada.

1519 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/15/23 5:47:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, my colleague started his speech by paying special tribute to the work of non-governmental organizations. However, most, if not all, of the amendments that were moved by the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, based on input from the environmental groups, were brushed aside by the government and the official opposition. I think a lot remains to be accomplished if we hope to really modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and protect the public's health and the environment.

88 words

Mr. Peter Schiefke

May/15/23 5:48:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague, the member for Repentigny, for her exceptional work on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I was fortunate to work with her. We worked well together and collaborated closely with the community and environmental groups that came to share their ideas. I think that all of the parties and the Government of Canada did a great job of including most of these groups' recommendations in Bill S‑5. I believe that extremely positive changes will follow for all Canadians. Of course, there are other things we could do, but I think that we have made a lot of progress in terms of protecting the environment for the good of Canadians. I am very proud of the work we did.

131 words

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

May/15/23 5:48:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I find it really interesting that the government deliberately excluded the tailings ponds in the Athabasca from review, because we know that just prior to the illegal tailings pond leak at Imperial Oil, the environment minister was scheduled to allow a massive release of the toxic chemicals that are in that contaminated water into the Athabasca River system. We know from speaking with Fort Chipewyan and the Mikisew Cree that they suffer high levels of cancer. We are dealing with ammonia, lead, mercury, benzene and other contaminants, and yet the environment minister was more than willing to let this be released into the Athabasca River. These are tailings ponds that are 2.6 times the size of the city of Vancouver and are growing every day. When is the government going to actually deal with the massive level of water contamination coming out of the oil sands projects?

150 words

Mr. Peter Schiefke

May/15/23 5:49:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy. I know he works very hard on environmental protection. The one thing I would say, and I think my hon. colleague knows this very well, is that the reason those references were removed for those specific activities is that they were already captured under subsection 46(1) as activities that may contribute to pollution. The reality is that information on tailings ponds is already collected and reported under CEPA and Canada's public inventory of releases, known as the national pollutant release inventory. This is already being done, so the committee decided not to single out one particular industry because this information is already being collected and shared with Canadians.

123 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/15/23 5:50:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges would agree with me that the right to a healthy environment needs to be more than a bumper sticker. I wonder if he would share to what extent he is similarly disappointed that reasonable amendments from many parties, including from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which would have ensured that the right to a healthy environment is not just considered but protected, were not accepted?

78 words