44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 15, 2023 11:00AM
- May/15/23 12:08:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite and the NDP for their very thoughtful collaboration on this piece of legislation. It has been extremely important to hear the perspectives of all members, but we appreciate the thoughtfulness of the proposed amendments and the collaborative way in which the party opposite has worked with the government to strengthen the approach.
When we pass this legislation, the outcomes we are all hoping for are better protections and a healthy environment for all Canadians. There are many stories across the country where Canadians' environmental protection has not been considered. In fact, as Minister of Indigenous Services, I have many examples I can and will share through this time period.
There are examples of communities with drinking water that has been irreversibly damaged and contaminated. There are long-standing health conditions relating to environmental contamination; this not only results in ongoing suffering and premature death but also millions, if not billions, of dollars spent to try to ameliorate that contamination.
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:22:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I could repeat the numbers that I have given over the last minutes, but I will just say that I do believe that we have had rigorous debate on this piece of legislation, which, by the way, Canadians are waiting for.
We have heard a number of members raise different environmental disasters. In fact, the bill would attempt to prevent those, and it would recognize the right to a healthy environment. It would strengthen the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances. There have been 38 clauses amended, out of nearly 70 clauses, and this is over a long time period.
Canadians do expect rigorous debate in this place; I know that and I hear that from my constituents.However, they also expect us to act, and that is what today is about. Today is about taking that debate and putting it into motion so Canadians can have confidence that this place is doing the work they expect of it.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:23:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear the member opposite talk about the many different ways environments can be degraded. As I said, in a nutshell, this act would recognize a right to a healthy environment and strengthen the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances. It would impose a duty on the government to protect that right and to uphold related principles.
I will just say that many of these tragedies we are talking about are decades old, yet people are still living with the environmental impacts to this day. I was speaking with people in Grassy Narrows last week about the ongoing contamination of water and about the life that many of the residents have, in living with mercury poisoning. These are conversations that should alarm us all and compel us to act quickly, and that is what today is about.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:26:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for talking about the need to have stringent requirements for corporations to not pollute the environment, which not just our generation but also the generations to follow will rely on. This is an important part of that. This legislation would recognize the right to a healthy environment and impose a duty on the government to protect that right and uphold related principles. It would require ministers to develop an implementation framework within two years and to conduct research to support the protection of the right. The legislation is expected to support strong environmental and health standards now and in the future, and there would be a ton of opportunity, through this legislation, to strengthen the rights to a healthy environment and to strengthen the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances that have deleterious health effects for so many Canadians.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:29:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I take note that this debate on a time allocation motion about an environmental protection act really has nothing to do with the issue the Conservatives keep raising.
The only thing they can talk about, when it has to do with the environment, is Montreal and what it does with its sewage system. If they really wanted to help Montreal, perhaps they would talk about helping Montreal with infrastructure to upgrade the capacity, so it is no longer put in those types of situations.
That seems to be the go-to when it is anything related to the environment. We are talking about a piece of legislation that will significantly overhaul the way we look at environmental protection in our country for generations to come. I am wondering if the minister can talk about, and I know that she already has, and highlight some of the specifics of what this legislation will do to improve the quality of life of Canadians for generations to come.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:31:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, after travelling around the country visiting with indigenous communities over the past two years, the most heartbreaking aspect is visiting a community that has seen a significant degradation of its environment related to industrial activity.
We do not have to look very far. These are communities in northern Ontario. I know some members have never been there, but when one visits the community, one sees environmental pollution, and one could say environmental racism. There are people living there, and they have a right to a healthy environment, just like everyone in Montreal, Toronto, Windsor and Thunder Bay does, for that matter.
This legislation is important. It is important to make sure that we do not have an out-of-sight, out-of-mind perspective when it comes to environmental rights. This legislation helps to get us there.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:32:39 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, the record of the government on environmental law and protections for the future generations is something that all Canadians have noted. In fact, our environmental plan is about protecting the future generations.
It is about our part as Canada to reduce emissions, transition to a clean economy make sure that everybody has an opportunity to benefit from that clean economy. We have to do so, even though those conversations are hard. That is what this debate has been. This has been hours and hours of debate, more than there were for the budget implementation act. This has been about extensive study, many written submissions and many oral submissions.
I look forward to working with the member opposite and, indeed, all parties, to make sure that, as we implement this legislation, we breathe full life into it, so that every Canadian can see themselves reflected.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:22:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and support this legislation, Bill S-5. I understand, from what I have been told, that all members of the House recognize its value and are in favour of supporting it. As the House will know, it is a substantive piece of legislation.
It has been a long time since we have seen substantial changes to our environmental laws, which is the essence of what Bill S-5 would do. In many ways, it would make substantive changes that would modernize the law and make a very powerful statement to all Canadians. They have a right to a healthy environment. The essence of Bill S-5 is about ensuring that Canadians recognize they have a right to a healthy environment.
What is interesting is the process that has brought us to where we are today. The legislation has been thoroughly debated in different committees, both at the Senate and at the House of Commons, and it has already had a substantial number of amendments. During the years I was in opposition, it was rare to see amendments, unless of course they were government amendments, but when we think of—
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:33:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I do not know all the details in the legislation to the degree that I could actually give a specific answer to the member. However, when we talk about Canadians having that guarantee of environmental rights, I suspect there are ways to take into consideration a wide variety of environmental issues related to what the member has said.
Again, maybe the member was at the committee or is going into details with which I am just not quite familiar enough.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 3:01:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, not only is expanding Trans Mountain at our expense an economic failure, it is an environmental disaster. To recoup all the money thrown at this project, the Crown corporation is going to have to ship a lot of oil for a long time. Trans Mountain expects to have a capacity of 890,000 barrels of oil per day after the expansion.
It is going to take a lot of oil days to pay back a $30.9-billion debt, but who will take care of our environmental debt?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 4:42:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I left off in my speech talking about a number of areas where this legislation could have gone even further to make it better. I am talking about mandatory ambient air quality measures and making sure we are protecting the right to a healthy environment.
The last area I want to mention is that, while important advances were made in this legislation to create the ability of the government to label products containing toxic substances, it falls short of the recommendation in the 2017 Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's report that proposed providing mandatory labelling on all products containing toxic substances. I note that a consultation was launched last year to bring in new measures to have labelling. I hope this leads to more robust measures that would give individuals access to all the information they need when exposing themselves to any substance that may be toxic.
While this bill is not perfect, it makes some very important advances in the field of toxic substance management and environmental protection that are long overdue. I agree with both industry and the non-profit sector that we need to pass it as quickly as possible, since it has now been over a year since the bill was originally tabled in the Senate. Although the thought of it is giving me some PTSD, having worked on the bill for so long at committee, we should swiftly pass this legislation so we can get to the new round of amendments that our government has promised on CEPA that are long overdue for reform.
This includes the issue of ocean dumping and the rest of part 7. When the Conservatives shut down the Kitsilano Coast Guard base, it put the waters around the busiest port in the city of Vancouver at risk. That vulnerability led to a major oil spill in English Bay not getting noticed for almost 24 hours, back in 2015. While the Liberal government reopened the Kitsilano Coast Guard base to protect the waters and prevent this type of event from happening again, because of the wording of CEPA right now, the shipowner who spilled all of the bunker oil was not held liable for the damage caused. This is a clear violation of the polluter pays principle that needs to be fixed.
Most importantly, I note the environmental protection actions. Under section 22, there is the possibility of bringing in environmental protection actions to allow the public to hold the government to account for not properly investigating or responding to an alleged offence under the act. However, because of how this provision is currently written, it is not practical. This needs to be changed in future iterations of the bill.
With that, as I see my time is running out, I look forward to questions from my colleagues.
472 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 4:48:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned at the very end the things we need to fix about this bill that were considered out of scope, and I assume that is why they were not fixed in this iteration of the bill. However, Bill S-5 was introduced as a different bill in a previous Parliament. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has never been enforceable. People knew that. One would think this would have been the first thing to be tackled by the government when it was fixing this bill after 24 years.
I am just wondering why that did not occur to the government and why we now have to have another piece of legislation. I agree with him that we need it done as quickly as possible to make this bill enforceable. What is the point of having environmental protection if it is not enforceable?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 4:49:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. We need to reform the way that environmental protection actions are done under the bill. I do not think that means the act is not enforceable. Rather, what these actions allow us to do is hold the government to account if it is not doing its job to enforce it.
As someone who comes from an environmental law background, this is very much top of mind. I agree that it has to be one of the priorities. This issue was discussed in the report in 2016-17, when we went through it, and we have some options that were recommended and that we could move forward with.
I hope this process starts very quickly, because we want to make sure that the public has trust in the way this regime will be operating. I think this would be a really critical way of making sure that we are going to build that trust.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:04:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we need to protect the lives of workers across Canada first and foremost. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act should be protecting those work sites as much as it can.
I will point out as well that the number one site for reclamation in Canada right now is the Giant Mine in Northwest Territories, which is overseen by federal jurisdiction. It is going to cost the federal government $4 billion in order to fix the pollution at that mine at this point in time. This is a failure of regulatory oversight. It is a failure for the environment, and it is a failure we cannot continue to make in Canada. Going forward, it is essential to this country to hold officials accountable for the outcomes affecting our environment, the lives of our workers and the people affected by that environment.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:06:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House for the second time to speak to Bill S‑5. I was also very pleased to chair the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development when we studied and amended this bill.
Members may not know that, in 1999, I was the assistant to a member who sat on the environment committee. I was therefore quite familiar with the process of the first round of amendments made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This is a bit of déjà vu, but I see that we have made some progress with Bill S‑5.
I would like to start by talking about tailing ponds. As we know, these are large artificial lakes that are found in the oil sands region and were built by the oil sands industry in the Athabasca River basin in northern Alberta.
Everything having to do with water in that region, including the tailing ponds, is something I have long been interested in. In 2009, I launched a study at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. At the time, I was a member along with the Prime Minister, who had just been elected as an MP. There was another member with us, the member for Ottawa South. We were in the opposition and we managed to convince the other opposition members at the committee, because it was a minority government, to adopt the motion to conduct a study. We had to work with the other opposition parties to get permission from the committee before we could embark on a study. We studied the impact of the oil sands industry on aquatic ecosystems in the Athabasca River basin.
We did this work somewhat in collaboration with the late David Schindler, who was one of the greatest experts in the world on aquatic ecosystems. At the time, he was conducting research into this topic.
The committee was chaired by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who is directly in front of me in the House. He is not listening to me right now, but he was the chair of the committee.
Up to that point, it was claimed that there were pollutants and bitumen in the Athabasca River, but that it was normal, that it had always been like that, and that explorers had found bitumen in the river 200 years ago. However, David Schindler conducted a study to prove that the bitumen was coming from the oil sands industry through toxins released into the atmosphere. When it rained, those toxins in the air were falling into the river and polluting it.
Why am I mentioning that? The reason is that, while we were studying Bill S‑5 in committee or shortly thereafter, Imperial Oil's Kearl project experienced a tailings leak. We have invited the company and members of neighbouring first nations to appear before the committee to discuss the issue. We are going to have further discussions on the subject shortly.
In a way, as far as I am concerned, we are coming full circle because the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's study dates back to around 2009-10.
Why did I mention tailings ponds? It is because the Senate added tailings ponds to Bill S‑5 before it was sent to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We discussed that amendment at great length in committee and it attracted media attention.
All of a sudden, the media was reporting that Bill S-5 was being studied. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc Québécois, I believe, wanted to keep a reference that the Senate had put in the bill regarding tailings ponds.
I am pretty agnostic on whether the reference to tailings ponds should stay in the bill, but the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development decided to remove the reference.
I am quite agnostic about whether we mention tailings ponds in CEPA. However, I know that the Senate amendment, which we reversed in committee, garnered a lot of attention because we were studying the bill at the same time the Kearl tailings pond leak occurred.
As I said, I am agnostic, as such a mention would be nice, especially in the context of what has happened at the Kearl site, but it would add nothing to the powers of the federal government. The federal government already has a fair amount of power with tailings ponds. I do not mind if it is put back in, but my only fear and concern is that, if we had not taken out that reference, and if we get specific in the language in CEPA around tailings ponds, we could be detracting from the generality of some provisions that relate to pollution.
The government already has the power under CEPA to compel information about substances and activities for purposes such as conducting research, creating an inventory, or formulating objectives and codes of practice, which is in subsection 46(1) of CEPA, which reads:
The Minister may, for the purpose of conducting research, creating an inventory of data, formulating objectives and codes of practice, issuing guidelines or assessing or reporting on the state of the environment, publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister considers appropriate a notice requiring any person described in the notice to provide the Minister with any information that may be in the possession of that person or to which the person may reasonably be expected to have access, including information regarding the following:
(a) substances on the Priority Substances List;
Then there is a whole list of areas before it continues with paragraph 46(1)(f), which reads, “substances that may cause or contribute to international or interprovincial pollution of fresh water, salt water or the atmosphere”. This would include what is going on in the oil sands industry and could include tailings ponds.
Further down in the list, paragraph 46(1)(k) reads, “the release of substances into the environment at any stage of their life-cycle”.
Under CEPA, the government can request information about tailings ponds, what is in tailings ponds and how tailings ponds are reacting. However, the government, just to give a little added heft to the bill, added proposed paragraph 46(1)(k.1): “activities that may contribute to pollution”. Therefore, we are really creating a wide net here to capture any kind of activity, but the law, as it is, captures tailings ponds and gives the federal government the right and the power to oversee these large structures.
As I said, I would not mind if it were put back in, but I do not think it is necessary. I do not think the committee erred by removing the specific references to tailings ponds and to hydraulic fracturing, which were added by the Senate when the bill was first studied there.
1165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:18:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the bill evolves every time we make amendments to it.
There is already talk of a second bill in this session of Parliament to further strengthen the act. Perfecting the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a long-term project, so to speak. I can be less enthusiastic if my colleague would prefer.
The member must admit that the whole idea of a right to a healthy environment is a major step forward. Obviously, that right is not set out in the Canadian Constitution, but it will influence all sorts of laws and regulations. It is an important part of the act.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:21:30 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this afternoon on Bill S-5, legislation that the government has put forward in the Senate and is now with us in the House. It is a bit of an environmental policy omnibus, as it brings together a number of different kinds of provisions updating various pieces of legislation.
Conservatives are prepared to support this legislation. We think, generally, that the direction of it is positive, that it improves on its absence. Therefore, we are going to be supporting it, but it is also an opportunity to reflect, more broadly, on the government's approach to environmental policy because I think we are seeing, at a macro level, a lot of failures from the government in environmental policy. These are failures in how it acts and how it thinks about the environmental challenges in front of us.
Before I get into particulars, I wanted to propose a framework for thinking about environmental policy. When we debate questions in the House, there are some questions we debate that deal in moral absolutes, questions of absolute right or absolute wrong about how we are acting or how the state might treat a person. In such cases, we do not apply a consequentialist filter to determinations about those things. We say that this sort of action is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of any sort of effort to interpret the consequences in a favourable way. There are issues we deal with that relate to questions of absolute right and wrong, absolute justice and injustice, etc.
There are also questions, though, that we evaluate on consequential grounds, where the thing being done in and of itself is not intrinsically impermissible, unjust or just. Rather, the thing being done, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, can be assessed in its consequences.
In moral reasoning, there are those who tend to want to apply absolute moral considerations to a broader range of areas, and there are those who want expand the space of areas in which we consider things on a purely consequentialist grounds. Those are important debates, and there are maybe cases at the margins where we ask if this is a scenario where we would apply absolute reasoning or consequentialist reasoning.
For those with a certain kind of view and a perspective on the environment, they take a very absolutist approach. They are the ones to say that one ought not to be producing greenhouse gas emissions, or one ought not to be engaging in certain kinds of industrial production, period, full stop. If it is hurting the planet, therefore it is an absolute wrong, regardless of the immediate consequences. There are those who take that perspective.
My view is, though, that an environmental policy consideration should be viewed through a consequentialist lens, that is whether emissions are justified in a particular case or not, whether emissions should be allowed and what kind of regulation or taxation policy should be applied in particular cases. Those should be evaluated, not through the lens of moral absolutes, but through the lens of consequences. Does allowing emissions in a particular case produce better consequences or not?
Those who take the opposite view and argue for absolutist evaluation on environmental policy, I think, have to explain why we should not consider consequences. Why should we not countenance that producing emissions in certain cases may have better consequences for humanity in general, or for the environment in particular, just because of an absolute opposition they have to producing emissions in a particular case? I do not see any text or basis for saying that there is an absolute moral prohibition on producing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, I see this as being a space of consequentialist moral evaluation.
When one is looking at environmental policy through a consequentialist lens, when one is producing greenhouse emissions here, one always has to ask if it is displacing greenhouse gas emissions somewhere else. What are the net effects, in human security, human happiness, economic well-being and the environment? In general, the consequentialist reasoning Conservatives apply is why we are inclined to be very supportive, for instance, of energy development here in Canada, which we see as displacing less clean, and also potentially more negative, from a security perspective, energy being produced in other countries.
We say that expanding the Canadian oil and gas sector, even if it is within a certain narrow geographic band, might increase apparent emissions. However, if it is decreasing global emissions because it is displacing emissions in other cases, or if, in the production of that energy, we are generating new technology that could be used in other parts of the world to have positive effects overall, we are willing to say that, yes, that industrial activity is a net positive so we support it.
In other cases, they might say that Canada's producing more energy is bringing about security improvements in the world. If we are displacing Russian gas being exported to Europe by increasing our production and exporting it to Europe, the consequential impacts would be that Russia would not be able to fuel its war machine by selling gas to Europe so it would not able to continue this war. Russia's being less able to prosecute the war against Ukraine would be good for security, human life and well-being around the world. This is particularly true not only around Ukraine, but also more broadly. It is a positive overall.
Rather than taking an ideological, absolutist approach to environmental policy, we need to take a consequentialist approach to look at the full range of impacts, what the economic, well-being, security and environmental impacts are, and weigh the decision to develop versus the decision to not develop within that larger consequentialist framework.
As I try to understand where different parties are coming from in the House and why they come to different conclusions, I see a philosophical difference on environmental policy between the official opposition, for instance, and some of the other parties in this place. It is not that one group of people is concerned about the environment and the other is not. We are all concerned about the impact of policies on the environment. We all recognize the role that environmental policy plays in contributing to humans' flourishing or not and to human well-being, etc. However, we believe that those evaluations should be done in a consequentialist way, as opposed to this absolute opposition to certain kinds of development and resources, etc.
We hear things from even the government that suggest that it is buying in to this more absolutist way of looking at environmental policy when we have, for instance, repeatedly tried to push the government. We have said it is important to develop our oil and gas sector, for instance, to displace less environmentally friendly sources of energy in other parts of the world. The government members will say that, no, these particular kinds of fuels are the energy of the past and the solution to 20th century instead of the 21st century. Just factually, that is not true. Oil and gas continues to be a very significant part of the global energy mix. Moreover, it shows this kind of attachment to an absolutism with the effort to apply the kind of language of moral absolutes to an area in energy policy where more consequentialist considerations are more appropriate.
I just wanted to put this on the record as a way of thinking about what kinds of differences exist between parties on environmental policy because it is often convenient for us to paint with a broad brush to say that this group of political actors care and this group of political actors do not care. We can have better conversations and more substantive understandings of each other if we try to look behind that to say what is motivating different political actors to come to different conclusions.
Just to summarize, Bill S-5 is a bit of an omnibus bill that covers various kinds of environmental policy changes. It is a bill that most parties in the House support, although there are some with different quibbles. We have a shared concern in the House for the environment and a shared recognition that environmental policy has an impact on human life and human well-being. Moreover, we see the environment as a good in and of itself and not just as a means to other goods. Also, we make those environmental policy considerations through a more consequentialist moral framework, rather than an absolute one, which is more appropriate for the particulars in this case.
1449 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
