SoVote

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

May/15/23 6:35:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the people of Lytton and the Fraser Canyon want the federal and provincial governments to take action to improve infrastructure so that they can live in their town. Investments are needed so that these people can continue living in their town. Nearly two years after the disaster, we are not there yet.

54 words

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

May/15/23 6:36:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his speech; his points about Lytton are well taken. I think everyone's hearts continue to go out to the folks there, who need more action from the government. I noted their community broke yet another temperature record just the other day by 7°C, if I recall correctly. My colleague spoke about how this bill did not address the specific needs of our shared home province. Could he expand on what amendments or clauses he wishes were contained in this bill that would better address the needs of British Columbians when it comes to a healthy environment?

113 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/15/23 6:36:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, that was the whole point of my speech. It was about taking action on preventing and responding to emergencies, supporting environmental protection related to aboriginal lands and strengthening the enforcement of CEPA. They were all points I raised in my speech. It all goes to the point that British Columbia is never going to get its fair share in this country until we have equal elected and effective representation in both chambers of this House and of this Parliament. I hope the member appreciates that.

87 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

May/15/23 6:37:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, Canadians care about the health of their environment. According to polling, 92% of Canadians believe the government should recognize the right to live in a healthy environment. Canada has several major pieces of legislation on environmental protection, but the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the centrepiece of that commitment. Bill S-5, which we are debating here today, is the long-awaited update to that act. It has been 24 years since the last update, and there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. Some of that water likely contained some of the many new toxins we have invented in the last two decades, and that is one thing that needed to be updated with this bill. We have also learned a great deal about the cumulative effects of even tiny doses of these toxins. We literally have to run to keep up with the ways we are damaging the environment here in Canada and around the world. People concerned about the environment welcomed the effort to update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, as it known for short, and the NDP welcomed that too. It is long overdue. I want to spend a bit of time talking about the history of this particular bill, as I think it puts some of the efforts to fix CEPA in a better context. The bill was first introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-28, tabled in April 2021, two years ago. However, the government did not bring it to the floor of the House for debate that spring and then called an election in the summer, so that ended that version of the bill. Environmental law experts across the country analyzed that bill and began to drop ideas to make it better when it came back to Parliament. There was some hope that the government would take some of those ideas and amend the new version before reintroducing it so that things would not be considered out of scope. Instead, it tabled the exact same version of the bill, the same as Bill C-28, in the Senate in February 2022, where it took on its life as Bill S-5, the bill we are debating today. The Senate took a long, serious look at the bill in committee, improved it in several ways and sent it to the House at the end of June last year, and the House took it up last fall. It has since been through second reading debate and committee, and we see it here at report stage. This bill, at its heart, is about allowing Canadians to live in a clean, healthy environment. Much of its detail is in regulations around toxic chemicals, chemicals we have invented and continue to invent and chemicals released into the environment, whether knowingly or not, that can directly affect our health and degrade the ecosystems we all depend on. One new and very important part of this bill is the long-overdue inclusion of language that declares that Canadians have the right to live in a healthy environment. Last year, on July 28, 2022, the UN General Assembly passed a unanimous resolution that recognized the right to a healthy environment around the world. A hundred and fifty-nine countries around the world have legal obligations to protect the human right to a healthy environment, but Canada does not. There are environmental bills of rights in Ontario, Quebec, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but there is no federal law that explicitly recognizes the right to a healthy environment in Canada. Bill S-5 could change that, so it is a positive step forward, but it is important to back up declarations of rights with legislation that enforces those rights. Unfortunately, the previous version of CEPA was considered unenforceable, and this one is no better. The Senate committee studying Bill S-5 sent the bill to the House with the following message: This committee would like to state their concern that the right to a healthy environment cannot be protected unless it is made truly enforceable. This enforceability would come by removing the barriers that exist to the current remedy authority within Section 22 of CEPA, entitled “Environmental Protection Action.” There is concern that Section 22 of CEPA contains too many procedural barriers and technical requirements that must be met to be of practical use. As Bill S-5 does not propose the removal or re-evaluation of these barriers, this Committee is concerned that the right to a healthy environment may remain unenforceable. The reason the Senate did not fix this enforceability issue with amendments is that apparently it would have been considered out of scope, so I would say the government should table separate legislation as soon as possible to remedy this. Again, the government could have missed all of this if it had fixed this problem with CEPA and Bill S-5 before tabling the new version of the bill. Similarly, there were other major shortcomings in Bill S-5 that were out of scope for amendments, including a lack of legally binding and enforceable air quality standards. It is really quite surprising that the first draft of Bill S-5 made no attempts to address air quality at all. It also lacks a more open, inclusive and transparent risk assessment process for the evaluation of genetically engineered animals in the environment, especially wild salmon. Salmon are a critical part of our aquatic ecosystems and are sacred to first nations that have relied on healthy salmon populations for millennia. The risk of introducing genetically engineered salmon into the wild environment should set off alarm bells on all sorts of fronts. I would like to mention here that I have a private member's bill, Bill C-219, the Canadian environmental bill of rights, that would extend the right to a clean environment across the federal mandate, not just for toxins and other aspects covered under CEPA, but for all aspects of the environment covered by federal legislation. The heart of Bill C-219 is a transparent accountability process that would allow Canadians to ensure their government is actually upholding the right to a clean environment. That accountability process is missing from Bill S-5 and CEPA. It could have and should have been included. I am hoping that the government and all parties will support my bill and use that part of it as a model to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In conclusion, I would like to make it clear that the NDP will be voting in favour of Bill S-5 at this stage. We are happy that the right to live in a clean and healthy environment has finally been recognized within federal legislation, and we are happy the bill confirms the government's commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples under the act. However, the bill has many shortcomings, only some of which I have listed above. I was heartened to hear the speech from the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, in which he admitted these shortcomings and called for a new bill amending CEPA to fix them as soon as possible. Why they were not included in the bill before us, which has been 24 years in the making, is beyond my comprehension, but I would certainly welcome such a bill. Most Canadians will be happy to see the bill pass, and I know that most parties will be voting for the bill, albeit some reluctantly. I hope the Senate will deal with it promptly so we can enjoy its benefits and quickly start the process of crafting a new bill that will once again make CEPA a stronger act, an act that will truly protect Canadians and ensure that we and our grandchildren can live in the clean and healthy environment that is our right.

1329 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

May/15/23 6:46:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member across the way on the science and research committee. Part of this bill has to do with science and research in that animal testing and the use of toxic treatments on animals are things this bill addresses. Through testimony we received from Dr. Chandrasekera, we are going to chip-based technology, which can simulate the testing done currently using toxic chemicals on animals. Could the hon. member comment on how this is an important move forward on behalf of animal rights?

90 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:46:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I agree that we have seen a gradual improvement in the way we treat animals broadly, especially within the research context, and I am happy to see that included in the bill. The bill has a lot of good things in it. That is why I think it is important that we support it. It just has many shortcomings that make me feel disappointed about it in other ways. I hope we will see a new bill, a fresh bill, on CEPA shortly, but I agree that it is a good step forward.

95 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/15/23 6:47:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, we are discussing a bill to establish the right to a healthy environment. However, this bill does not actually give Canadians such a right. In its current form, Bill S‑5 does not really give citizens a way to assert this right. Does my colleague acknowledge that this would depend on the government's goodwill or lack thereof? At the moment, it seems reasonable to question whether certain government actions show that it really wants to move in the direction of a meaningful right to a healthy environment.

92 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:48:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, indeed, one of the major problems with Bill S-5 is that the enforceability of the right to live in a clean and healthy environment is left up to the minister. It is not up to the residents of Canada, who should be able to bring forward concerns to the minister and then follow a transparent and timely path so we can make sure this right is upheld in a proper manner. It should not be left entirely up to the minister, as it is now.

88 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/15/23 6:49:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his leadership in introducing a true right to a healthy environment through Bill C-219. I think this is the third speech I have heard sharing an interest in introducing better legislation before we even get this bill passed. We know that the Conservative Party intends to support this legislation, but it does not even support a carbon tax as a starting point, the simplest environmental policy of any to begin with. What does he think this says about the quality of the legislation in front of us now?

102 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:49:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member. This bill is one of the steps in the right direction. It is something we feel we should support because we want to make a step in the right direction. We just wish there were several steps or bigger steps. At least with the right to a clean and healthy environment, for instance, we now have that enshrined within legislation. However, we do not have a good method of enforcing it. That is one thing we should do next, one of several things I outlined. A lot of these issues could have been fixed if the government had listened to what people were saying, after Bill C-28 was introduced, about ways to fix it. It should have made Bill S-5 a much better bill from the start.

137 words

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

May/15/23 6:50:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I like to think that Bill S-5 is a piece of legislation that really demonstrates the government's commitment to bringing forward good, solid legislation with the co-operation of both the House and the Senate. We have seen amendments proposed by all political parties, and different amendments were accepted. I think we have good, sound legislation, and we can all take some pride in its passage. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how ultimately this legislation is in fact advancing something worthwhile by giving Canadians the right to a healthy environment.

102 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:51:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, again, we had 22 years before Bill C-28 to fix this. We have had two years since then. This should have been a much better bill. We now have the right to live in a clean and healthy environment within the scope of CEPA, not within the scope of the rest of the federal mandate, so it is a tiny step. We should be doing better. We could have done so much better if the government had done so.

82 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on Motion No. 1. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

65 words

Deputy

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:52:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for a recorded vote, please.

12 words

Recorded
Ask

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:52:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on the motion also applies to Motion No. 3. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/15/23 6:53:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote, please.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:53:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3. At this time the House should proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Tuesday, May 16, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/15/23 6:54:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 7:20 p.m. so we can begin the late show.

33 words

Late
Call

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/15/23 6:54:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 7:20 p.m. so we can begin the late show.

33 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:54:40 p.m.
Watch

Do we have unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:20 p.m.? Some hon. members: Agreed.

18 words