SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 201 - May/29/23

May/29/23 12:27:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, if I reference the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands often, it is an indication of the deep respect that I have for her and the long time that I have known her as one of the foremost environmental activists in our country. We are going to be consulting broadly on part 6, because we want to implement regulations that will have teeth and that will address some of the concerns about genetically modified organisms. In my speech, I referenced genetically modified salmon. This was raised at committee repeatedly. If a genetically modified organism escapes into the wild, it could literally pollute the gene pool of living organisms there. With respect to indigenous people, I want to thank Senator McCallum, who happens to be from Manitoba, my home province. She really added so many important provisions that recognize the important role indigenous people play in our country in protecting the environment. UNDRIP is referenced; traditional knowledge is referenced, and those kinds of provisions are a great improvement in the bill.

173 words

All Topics

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

May/29/23 12:29:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend, for many years, has been a very strong advocate on the environmental file, in particular with regard to waterways. I know he was in charge of a press conference we just recently had in the city of Winnipeg, dealing with the Canada water agency, and I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts on how important that is to our country and to our city.

72 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid

May/29/23 12:29:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, CEPA and the Fisheries Act help protect our water, but the federal government needs to show more leadership on water, and I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who repeatedly called for an independent departmental agency that would report directly to the minister, which we now call the Canada water agency. It would help to protect and manage our waterways, working with provinces, territories, indigenous governments and communities, and other stakeholders for time immemorial. Canada is home to 20% of the world's fresh water, and we have to protect it.

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

May/29/23 12:30:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate. As members know, since October, I have had the privilege of being the official opposition's shadow minister for climate change and environment. I am honoured by the confidence placed in me by the hon. member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition and our future prime minister. Of course, I intend to take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, this is essentially the first bill I have been able to devote 100% of my time to. I participated in almost every stage of the bill. Climate change is real. Humans have an impact on the creation of climate change, which is why humans must find solutions. That is why we offered our full support to the committee, along with the government and the other political parties, to make sure that the bill can be passed, balanced with the necessary political debate. Let me explain. This bill seeks to update an act that was adopted nearly 24 years ago, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. It is totally normal and useful to review a bill that was tabled almost a quarter of a century ago, so this what we did in a committee of the House. The Senate also did that job of adapting what was tabled in 1999 to the reality of 2023 and more. That is why we wanted to strike the appropriate balance between protecting the environment and the future of this planet and taking the Canadian economy and Canadians' lives into account. That is what this bill tries to do. The bill has received support from environmental groups and the industry, but not unqualified support, not blind support. These two groups often disagree on the common good, but they did agree on one thing, which is that it was time to move forward. I recall that the bill was tabled in the Senate, and all the people who are interested in environmental issues will say it is time to move forward and act. For sure, it is time to act, but unfortunately the bill, though it may be passed today or tomorrow, will be a year to two too late. This is because this piece of legislation was tabled in the old Parliament, and it was before the Prime Minister decided almost two years ago to call the shots and call an election during the fourth wave of the COVID pandemic. It was an election that cost more than $600 million of taxpayer money for almost exactly the same result we had. This was only because the Prime Minister wanted to move by himself, but for that we lost a full year of parliamentary work on that piece of legislation. The bill as it stands is essentially the same as the earlier version that was introduced during the previous Parliament. This time, the government has decided, and that is its right, to introduce it in the upper chamber. It was debated in the Senate as Bill S-5. It was then sent to the House of Commons to be debated here. That is interesting, and this is where we have some concerns. I will come back to that. Essentially, at the heart of the matter, as I said, this bill is a revision of the environmental laws that we have had for almost a quarter of a century. However, there are also new elements. First, we recognize the right of citizens to live in a healthy environment. That is a principle that we Conservatives support. This is obvious. However, it must be precisely defined. The bill provides for two years of work to be able to define the legal framework, since, as we know all too well in our business, the devil is in the details. We therefore have to be sure that we have a really good law and proper regulations. The profile of populations said to be vulnerable must also defined. When there is mining or natural resource development, this may have a direct impact on people’s lives, just as the construction of a plant or new infrastructure can have a direct impact on a population. This is what we define as vulnerable populations and we need to make sure that all this goes well. There was an agreement to move forward. That is what we did. In fact, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, there have been more than 50 hours of committee work to be sure that we could directly address many aspects. Noting is perfect in this world, but we still worked well together, hand in hand. In addition, it always made me smile to see that we were finally getting along more often than we may have thought with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. As a resident of Quebec, I have known him for many years, as well as his very active role in defending the environment. Let us remember that 30 years and two weeks ago, he founded the group Équiterre with a few friends. As we know, Équiterre is now suing him for damaging the Canadian environment. Bill S-5 is off to a good start. We have clear objectives and we support them. However, now in our parliamentary work, something surprising, if not disappointing, has happened. That is what we call a flip flop. A party voted for something during parliamentary committee work and, when it came to the House, changed its mind and voted against it. They have that right. We do not dispute that right. It is just that we were a bit surprised and shocked, particularly since the flip flop was not related to a misplaced dash or comma in the text of Bill S-5, but instead about a fundamental element, respect for provincial jurisdiction. In our view, the amendment adopted by the House, particularly with the support and assistance of the Liberal government, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Green Party and the independents—in short, the Conservatives were the only ones who opposed it, and I will have the opportunity to clearly explain why—is an intrusion into areas of jurisdiction. The amendment as presented was not in the main bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament and in the Senate a year and a half ago. That element was not in it. It is an amendment that was proposed on June 1 2022, almost a year ago, by the senator from Manitoba, an amendment that essentially seeks to regulate tailing ponds and hydraulic fracturing. Basically, when work on natural resources is being carried out and there is hydraulic fracturing, that leaves tailings. That is why a legal framework was developed for that situation. In our view, this amendment, as proposed and adopted by the Senate, is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. That can be challenged, but that is our view. In fact, our perspective has been so well explained that, when we came before a House of Commons parliamentary committee, the member for Calgary-Centre suggested that these elements of the bill be withdrawn and that this amendment not be adopted. When the member for Calgary-Centre says something, it is because it has merit and is based on facts. There is jurisprudence to support it and relevant documentation. I have learned a lot from the co-operation and work of the member for Calgary-Centre. He was so convincing that he was able to persuade the government party in the parliamentary committee. All the liberal members, who are not the majority, but the largest parliamentary group in parliamentary committee, decided to support our proposal to set aside Senator McCallum’s amendment presented in June 2022. Let us review the facts: The bill does not provide for the regulation on hydraulic fracturing. Senator McCallum proposed an amendment to give teeth, depth and political weight to the federal government’s authority over this event. We get to committee and our party says stop, this is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and the Liberals vote with us. It is great, it is perfect, we agree. This is just one of many aspects, and I am focusing on that. I am being honest, and I am sure that the Liberal MPs will agree with me. It is impossible to fully agree on all of the items. In fact, I have been known to say that, if someone ever meets a politician who says they are completely in agreement with their leader, their party, all of their colleagues and the election platform, they are looking at a complete liar. It is humanly impossible, and the same is true for everyone. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who I am sure is nodding in agreement with me. What I am trying to say is that the more than 50 hours of work done in committee was an attempt to achieve consensus. Sometimes we succeeded, sometimes we did not. Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we disagreed. That is the big picture. We are supportive of the big picture of this bill, but we have some disagreements, as all of the parties have disagreements with some aspects of this bill. Everything was going well, it was great. We did our work in committee. When we got to the House to make a few speeches and accept the tabled report, three amendments were proposed: two by the Green Party and one by the NDP. The NDP’s amendment is essentially the same as Senator McCallum’s. That was a surprise and a disappointment, a bitter turn of events. Although we had the support and the agreement of the Liberal Party to make sure there was no interference in provincial jurisdiction, the Liberals switched sides and voted in favour of the NDP’s amendment. I acknowledge that that is their right. Anyone can change their mind. That is called evolution. Sometimes, when we change our minds, we evolve. I will say it that way to be polite. Some of my colleagues suggested that that is the nature of the coalition. As we know, the government has been working collaboratively with the NDP for a year now, even though they were certainly not given that mandate during the election. Canadians were not asked to vote for a coalition. The NDP said Canadians should vote for them and against the Liberals, and the Liberals said they should vote against the NDP, since they were not the NDP. Now, everyone is perfectly cozy, working together. That is the reality. The Liberals then flip-flop and support their coalition with the NDP, going against what they did in committee, against protecting provincial jurisdictions, against the fact that a bill should not lead to a constitutional dispute. On the contrary, we need to clarify the situation. These people crashed the debate and created this situation. What a disappointment. That is why, unfortunately, we will be voting against the bill, which, as amended, creates a legal precedent rife with consequences. This is why, last week, many of my colleagues from Alberta published a communiqué that says, “Canada's regulatory oversight framework is based upon clear division of responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government, as defined in our Constitution. The continued attempts to muddle this jurisdictional responsibility have led to a convoluted process of project approvals, duplication of costs, and uncertainty amongst investors.” Basically, what they are saying is that jurisdictional squabbles between the federal and provincial governments slow down projects, slow down the process and create uncertainty. They do not encourage people to move forward. People always hold back a bit. That is unfortunate because Canada is needed now more than ever. The world needs Canada's energy and natural resources more than ever, because we develop those resources responsibly and with respect for human rights in order to ensure they are sustainable. That is what Canada is known for. When layers of debate are created between the federal and provincial governments, it stalls all of that. Canada deserves better than another squabble between the federal and provincial governments. That is why we do not support this bill. I must also say that I was rather surprised that, both in committee and in the House, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this interference in the debates between the federal and provincial governments. We know that the Bloc Québécois always says that it is there to defend the interests of Quebec and that, by so doing, it is also defending the interests of all the provinces on jurisdictional matters, and yet in this case, the Bloc is giving the federal government more power to intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction, natural resources. This should come as no surprise. As members will recall, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-69. This actually goes back quite some time. It goes back to June 13, 2019, during the first Parliament of this Liberal government. The Bloc Québécois supported this Liberal government's Bill C-69. One could say that this goes way back, and wonder what it has to do with today's subject. Bill C-69 established a federal authority that supersedes the provincial authority for the development of hydroelectric resources. Everyone knows that Quebec has extraordinary hydroelectric potential, with dams that were all developed in the 1950s. Most were completed in the 1960s. We are very proud of them. Some that come to mind are the Beauharnois power station, which was expanded three times, or the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 power stations, built in 1953 and 1956. There is also the Carillon generating station, which was given the green light in 1958, and the Manic-Outardes complex, which was developed in the 1950s and completed in the 1960s. Quebec is very strong on hydroelectric production, but Bill C-69 contains a clause that says that the federal authority has the power to order environmental feasibility studies for these projects. This was well explained in an article by Alexandre Shields in Le Devoir. No one can really say that Mr. Shields and Le Devoir are Conservatives. That is the last thing anyone can say. In an article published on September 29, 2022, Mr. Shields gives a clear description of the situation saying, “That means that a major project...would involve the submission of an impact assessment study [to the federal government]. The federal government would then lead a process including public consultations and the drafting of a report....Then, the federal Minister of Environment would have to publish a ‘decision statement’ to authorize, or not, the construction of the concrete work.” Bill C‑69 granted the federal government the option to exercise veto power over hydro projects in Quebec, and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it. The Bloc Québécois voted for the NDP-Liberal coalition amendment, which allows for federal involvement in provincial jurisdictions. That does not make any sense to us. Natural resources are Canada's resources and we should be proud of that. We should be proud of the women and men who work in this sector. We should be proud of these people who, along with many others, create wealth in our country. The last thing this industry and these people need is a jurisdictional squabble. That is what the Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Green-Independent amendment does. That is why we are voting against this bill. In closing, I want to say this: This government prides itself on its fine words, but the results are sorely lacking. Let us recall what it said in 2015: “Canada is back. Canada is back."? Canada has far to go. The UN handed down a severe verdict in a report tabled at COP27 in Egypt concluding that Canada ranks 58th out of 63 nations on environmental issues. I am not the one saying this. It is written in black and white on page 11 of the UN’s document. This is unacceptable from people who are constantly lecturing everyone. Need I remind members that the Liberals never managed to achieve their own greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? They will say that is not true, that it has happened. The only time it happened was when the country shut down its economy because of COVID-19. I hope that their plan is not to shut down the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our plan is based on four basic pillars. First, we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through fiscal incentives to invest in new technologies. We need to give green energies the green light so they can be more accessible to Canadians. We need to export Canadian know-how. We should be proud to be Canadians and to develop our natural resource potential because, here at home, in Canada, we do it right. The fourth pillar is that everything should be done in partnership with the first nations. Together we can meet the challenges of climate change and the environment. Unfortunately, this bill, because of an amendment adopted at the last minute following a reversal by the Liberal Party, with the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the independent MPs, is going to trigger another federal-provincial dispute.

2930 words

All Topics

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

May/29/23 12:50:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks and his hard work on the ENVI committee. As I mentioned in my speech, materially, the NDP amendment really does nothing to detract from the bill. It is because of the Kearl tailings pond spill that the committee, in the end, voted to draw attention to this particular issue, so that it gets special attention. It is not a jurisdictional issue. This was already covered under the act and we are very careful about jurisdictional matters with federal legislation. My understanding was that the Conservatives were going to support the bill coming out of committee. Does this one change cause them to change their mind and to now vote against the bill after 50 hours of deliberations, during which the Conservatives mostly agreed with most of the amendments?

138 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/29/23 12:51:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, my answer is really simple: Yes. Unfortunately, yes. First of all, the hon. member said that amendment changed nothing. So why did he vote for it if it changed nothing? I do not understand why. The issue is what we have seen in Alberta following the tragedy there. Well, everything was said before. If I understand correctly what my colleague said, it changes nothing, and so if it changes nothing why did they vote for it? We see, unfortunately, an attack on the jurisdictional procedure. Some people will say no, some people will say yes, and that is the problem. We are going to start another fight for that, and who do we think will win that? It will be the lawyers. I have nothing against them, but, yes, for sure, we would start a new fight with that, which is the last thing we need when we talk about climate change, environmental issues and developing our full potential. Yes, we will vote against the bill, because it is not a minor agreement. We were surprised to see the flip-flop of the Liberals with the support of the NDP, Bloc, Greens and independents.

196 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/29/23 12:53:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which, as always, was passionate, well illustrated, and provided some really good arguments. We are probably experiencing the sixth mass extinction event for the species on our planet. I would like to ask my colleague a very specific question, since we are debating an environmental bill that protects species. Everyone is familiar with the monarch butterfly, that little orange butterfly. It is a species at risk that will now become an endangered species. A good part of the land where the monarch butterfly feeds on milkweed, its main source of food, is part of the Montreal airport. Over the past 10 years, the monarch butterfly population has declined by 85%. Our Minister of Environment says he defends biodiversity, but he is doing absolutely nothing to protect the monarch butterfly on federally owned land. What would the Conservative Party do to save the monarch butterfly?

153 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/29/23 12:54:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I must admit to the member that this is the first time I am hearing about this. I will take that under advisement, because I do not want to treat it like an insignificant detail. On the contrary, little things like that are what is hurting our environment and we need to take the work seriously. Because we do need to take this work seriously, it would be very hypocritical of me to start pleading on behalf of that beautiful little orange butterfly. It would be like if I were talking about blue jays. Out of respect for this issue, for my colleague, for the House and for myself, I will not just rattle off any old answer, but yes, we need to be careful. I understand very well the political spin that my colleague is putting on this, seeing how the Minister of Environment, the founder of Équiterre, is currently being sued by Équiterre because he decided to develop the full potential of Canada's natural resources through projects like Bay du Nord, which we applaud. Beyond that, I will take the member's suggestion under advisement and come back to it another time.

199 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/29/23 12:55:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I have a hard time following the Conservatives when it comes to fossil fuels, oil and the fight against climate change. In the last budget, I do not know how many times I asked the government whether it would stop giving money to big oil. I want to remind members that, in 2022, the five major oil companies made $200 billion in combined profits. In the most recent budget, our friends opposite continued to give those companies money in the form of direct and indirect assistance for carbon capture, which we now know does not work. That is greenwashing. I do not understand why the Conservatives are voting against giving the oil companies money. I am trying to understand.

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/29/23 12:56:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I am fully prepared to recognize, and that is the hon. member's love for Quebec and Quebeckers. I know that he knows—as I said a few moments ago in a parliamentary committee—that Quebeckers do not exist in a vacuum, that they live on planet Earth and that, last year, according to a study by the École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal, Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of oil. Today's reality is that Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year. I am more than willing to hear all the arguments about getting rid of oil, because it is terrible, because it is this or that. Yes, but the fact is that Quebec consumes 18 billion litres of oil. In addition, 47% of that oil comes from the United States. The last time I checked, neither Texas nor Louisiana contribute to equalization.

163 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

May/29/23 12:57:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments and his speech. I liked the part in his speech where he said that it was okay to disagree with people from his own party, or with the leader of his party. I agree with that. I noticed a few things. There is a kind of division that I have a hard time rationalizing. For example, some Conservative members believe in climate change and some do not. In my opinion, the distinction seems geographic. Can my hon. colleague from Quebec explain why he is being cautious about the oil and gas sector when it comes to this bill?

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/29/23 12:58:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, let me pay all my respects to the quality of the member's French. We have all worked to learn a second language. When I talk about a second language, I am not talking about French. I am talking about the second language after our mother tongue language. For as long as we need natural resources, including fossil resources, and for as long as we need oil, I will always stand for what is right for Canada, just as I support hydroelectricity and everything that comes from our country's natural resources. Can we be proud to be Canadians? Yes, we can and we must. The same goes for all natural resources.

114 words

All Topics

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

May/29/23 12:58:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also opposes the bill. The two parties that will be voting against Bill S-5 are the Green Party and the Conservative Party, but they will do so for completely different reasons. We think this is a bad bill. It runs counter to the goal of modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The hon. member talked about Bill C-69, which, for the Greens, was also a bad bill. I also voted against Bill C-69 because it establishes a system that is entirely at the discretion of a single minister, with no regulations across all federal regulation. That was more of a comment than a question.

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/29/23 1:00:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, as some often suggest, people on opposite sides of the world eventually come together. Perhaps that is why the Greens and the Conservatives will be voting the same way, but obviously for different reasons. The only thing I would like to add about Bill C-69 is something Alexandre Shields wrote in an article on the subject. He said that the office of the environment minister declined to comment on the matter, because it remains a “hypothetical project”. However, the minister did recall the provisions of the act, which clearly stipulate that a new dam would be subject to the act. If the Quebec government decides to go ahead with a new hydroelectric dam, Ottawa has no say in the matter.

125 words

All Topics

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

May/29/23 1:00:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is an absolute failure. I have a two-part question. Could the member address how the carbon tax is an absolute failure and how it has failed to reduce emissions? We, as Conservatives, have significant concerns regarding the amendments passed in the Senate. There are 24 different amendments, 11 of which make the bill significantly worse. After five years of consultation, how can this be drawn out further? Can he speak directly to the Liberal flip-flop causing the bill to collapse?

87 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/29/23 1:01:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, we just have to look at the facts. After eight years of the Liberal government, people pay more taxes and we still have more pollution. These are the facts. This is why the Liberal carbon tax does not work.

41 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

May/29/23 1:01:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and Quebec's territory. On April 13, 2022, parliamentarians belonging to all political parties represented in the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion affirming the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in matters of the environment. The elected officials of Quebec unanimously oppose “any intervention by the federal government in matters of the environment on Quebec territory”. The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position and strongly advocates for the interests and values of Quebec in the federal political arena. That said, in the existing legal framework, the federal government has certain environmental protection responsibilities. Bill S‑5 is part of that effort. Unfortunately, what is lacking are ambitions to guide action on this important file that is environmental protection. What is even more concerning is the fact that environmental protection, which has been undermined for some time, requires us to make up for measures that should have been implemented a long time ago. This was discussed in our last debate when my colleague from Repentigny called for prevention to be a fundamental pillar of this law. Quebec's Environment Quality Act, adopted in 1978, underwent a major reform in 2017. The act seeks to protect the environment and safeguard the species inhabiting it. Quebec law prohibits the deterioration of the quality of the environment or the emission of pollutants or contaminants. In addition to our Civil Code, the following laws are also related to environmental protection in Quebec and its support: the Sustainable Development Act, the Act to affirm the collective nature of water resources and to promote better governance of water and associated environments, the Natural Heritage Conservation Act and the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife. I had the honour of working on improving the first Quebec law on sustainable development introduced in 2004 at the National Assembly of Quebec and adopted in 2006. I remember the discussions we had about principles related to the foundation of sustainable development, including the precautionary principle. I will come back to that. Obviously, I need to seek unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague from Repentigny.

381 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/29/23 1:04:46 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: Agreed. The hon. member for Montcalm.

28 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/29/23 1:04:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, environmental policy requires trade-offs between health and environmental protection and commercial and industrial interests. If the committee had kept the improvements from the Senate and voted in favour of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois or the ones from the Green Party, this part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would had translated to a much more balanced approach. The refusal to improve the act by relying on best practices will unfortunately allow commercial and industrial interests to dominate and influence decision-making in Canada. Nevertheless, my colleague from Repentigny secured a victory for environmental protection when it comes to the precautionary principle. In the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the phrase “precautionary principle” was translated as “principe de prudence” in French. In our opinion, this flawed translation did not capture the essence of the precautionary principle, which is to refrain from doing something in case of risk, while “prudence” in French suggests the idea of taking an action and managing its risk. That is very different. The Bloc Québécois believes that recognizing the precautionary principle is essential to framing the implementation of a bill that seeks to protect the environment. The Bloc managed to rally the committee members in favour of correcting this, and we are satisfied and proud of that. The issue is this. Under the current regime, a substance must be proven to be toxic before it can be banned. In the meantime, such substances may be posing a threat to human or environmental health. Canada is falling behind when it comes to the pace at which new substances are being assessed. If we apply the precautionary principle rather than just being prudent, then, one would hope to see a reversal of the onus of proof, which would mean that authorization would be granted only once a substance has been proven not to be harmful to human or environmental health. It is true that the intent of Bill S‑5 is to give recourse to those who have been affected by issues involving environmental quality, environmental protection and the protection of living species. The bill seeks to make it mandatory to conduct an environmental impact assessment before carrying out any activity that could pose a high risk to the environment and to create a special access to information regime. It also seeks to regulate projects or activities that might impact wetlands or bodies of water and sets out criminal sanctions for those who break the law. It is on that last point, the matter of crime, that we see the true scope of the right to a healthy environment. Our political party is not fooled by the fanfare. Beyond the emotion and promises of the government about the inclusion of this right in the law, no one can deny that its scope will be very limited. If the government were serious about its desire to create a new right, it if had a little political courage, it would propose a round of constitutional negotiations with its partners in the federation to add this right to the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. It would ensure that Canadians could be certain that this right could be enforced and that there would be penalties for breaching it. The government would clearly ensure that it paves the way to greater environmental protection with robust measures carrying penalties. In case some members are not aware, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is quasi-constitutional in scope. I mention that because this charter established the following in 2006: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.” Canada's environmental law does not have the same scope. Enacting laws that are merely symbolic, and therefore not really enforceable, is just wrong. The details of this right to a healthy environment will be defined and framed by an implementation framework that will not be shared with us until two years from now. The scope of its application will be limited to this single legislative measure. The amendments to Bill S‑5, which proposed balanced, carefully considered legal mechanisms to allow recourse to the courts if that right is violated, were rejected out of hand by the Liberals and the Conservatives. Since we are on the subject, it would be entirely justified to demand that Canada set an example in protecting the environment and human health, which are increasingly at risk because of the toxic substances at the heart of the part of the act covered by Bill S‑5. The government can decide what message it wants to send but, notwithstanding the precautionary principle, are the provisions it describes as improvements in Bill S‑5 really that much of a gain? My colleague from Repentigny will argue that the absence of a preventive approach and the gutted Senate amendments on public participation perfectly illustrate the bill's missed opportunities.

850 words

All Topics

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

May/29/23 1:11:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that, at least in good part, we have support coming from the Bloc with regard to Bill S-5. One of the issues that the hon. member raised was guaranteeing a healthy environment for Canadians. When I look at the legislation, it is a very strong and powerful step in the right direction. I think Canadians as a whole would see it as positive. I have no doubt that it would take a bit of time to work out how we best deal with ensuring that right. Does the Bloc believe that the only way it could be dealt with is through a constitutional change? If so, does the member really believe that, whether in Quebec, Manitoba or any other jurisdiction, people want to see the Constitution reopened?

134 words

All Topics