SoVote

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

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

May/29/23 3:57:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The common people of Swan River are demanding a common-sense solution to repeal the Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies, which have fuelled a surge in crime throughout their community. A surge in robberies by repeat offenders has forced nearly every business to install bars on their windows and buzzers on their doors, and now many local businesses are considering closing their doors for good. To say that crime has significantly impacted the local economy is an understatement. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, as they directly threaten their livelihoods and their communities. I support the good people of Swan River.

138 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/29/23 3:57:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know and I am sure the member knows, we are not supposed to give our own editorial comments on a petition. At the end of presenting his petition, even though the member said he supports the people, he was indirectly doing what he cannot do directly. He was basically saying that he supports the petition.

66 words

The Speaker

May/29/23 3:58:13 p.m.
Watch

The point is taken.

4 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/29/23 3:58:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise this afternoon to present a petition signed by over 160,000 Canadians across the country and initiated by Caitlin Glasson, a strong trans activist in my community. The petition recognizes that the world is becoming increasingly hostile to transgender and non-binary folks. It also recognizes that transgender and non-binary people's right to live as themselves is being restricted and removed in many places, including places that have historically been presumed safe. This includes, they point out, more than a dozen U.S. states that have enacted or are considering legislation to eliminate or criminalize gender-affirming care. They also point out that Canada has prided itself on being an inclusive, tolerant and welcoming society for everyone, regardless of gender identity or gender expression. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to extend to transgender and non-binary people the right to successfully claim asylum in Canada, regardless of where they may be applying from.

165 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

May/29/23 3:59:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions today. The first one comes from Canadians across the country to draw the attention of the House to the report calling for the clergy of religious affiliation to be removed from the Department of National Defence. The petitioners are concerned about this. They say that this report slanders mainstream Canadian religions. They are concerned that the Canadian Armed Forces might remove chaplains. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to reject the recommendations of this report. They are also calling for the Government of Canada to affirm the rights of all Canadians, including Canadian Armed Forces chaplains, to religious freedom.

119 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

May/29/23 4:00:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting today comes from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the risk of violence increasing to women while they are pregnant. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to quickly pass a bill, which is in front of the House right now. They are calling on the House of Commons to recognize the abuse of pregnant women and the infliction of harm on these women as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing in the Criminal Code.

86 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

May/29/23 4:01:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about a Liberal Party platform of 2021 to deny charitable status to organizations with convictions about abortion that differ from those of the Liberal Party. This would jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters, food banks and other charitable organizations that do not necessarily agree with the Liberal Party of Canada on this matter of conscience. Many Canadians depend on the benefits of these charitable organizations, and the government has previously issued a values test that discriminated against worthy applicants of the Canada summer jobs program, denying funding for any organization that was not willing to check a box endorsing the political positions of the governing party. Charities and other non-profit organizations should not be discriminated against because of their political views or religious values, and they should not be subject to politicization or a values test. All Canadians have the right, through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to the freedom of expression without discrimination. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discriminating on the basis of political or religious values or imposing another values test, and to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.

228 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

May/29/23 4:02:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I have today is from Canadians from across the country who are outraged and concerned with the comments of Louis Roy of the Quebec college of physicians. He recommended expanding euthanasia to babies, from birth to one year old, who have come into the world with serious health challenges. This proposed legalized killing of infants is deeply disturbing to these Canadians, and they want to state emphatically that infanticide is always wrong. The petitioners are urging the Government of Canada and the House to block any attempts to allow for euthanising children.

97 words

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

May/29/23 4:03:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

12 words

Stand
Ask

The Speaker

May/29/23 4:03:34 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

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

May/29/23 4:03:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue speaking to Bill S-5, which we began debating again a few hours ago. When I started my comments, I made reference to the fact that I think there is a great deal of disappointment from many stakeholders due to the Conservative Party's change of heart. If we were to check Hansard from a couple of weeks back when we were talking about Bill S-5, I suspect one would see that I even implied that the Conservative Party was in favour of Bill S-5. Something has happened in the last little while that has convinced the Conservative Party to vote against Bill S-5. I do believe that it is a bad decision by the Conservatives. They still have a little bit of time to think about what they are doing with Bill S-5. I hope they will considerate it once again and adopt their original position of voting in favour of Bill S-5 because it does a wide variety of things, all of which, I believe, support the wishes and desires of many Canadians, the constituents we represent. It is interesting to look at the legislation. It covers a number of areas that I know Canadians are very concerned about. I wanted to highlight a few of those spots and then maybe go into depth on the issue of our environment and how important it is that, as parliamentarians, we do what we can to support legislation of this nature and broaden that support so it goes beyond just legislation. There are many budgetary measures. Canadians are watching. They are very much concerned about how politicians are voting on important issues of the day, the environment being one of them. It has been really interesting to listen to the debates, not only now but also during second reading. I had the opportunity to not only address the issue in part but also to listen to a good number of people. Whether it was in the House of Commons, the Senate of Canada, or the standing committees of Parliament, we have had a great deal of debate on this issue. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a substantial piece of legislation that provides a great deal of comfort to Canadians, is being enhanced and given strength after a couple of decades. There are some areas that I know people would be very, very pleased with. There are areas of concern, such as animal testing, for example. We are seeing non-animal testing methods being incorporated to a degree that it is going to be encouraged. I see that as a very strong positive. It is something that should be mentioned during the debate. It deals with the issue of reconciliation. Thinking about the environment and the stewardship of our environment, how can one not factor in our first nations that have taken such good, quality care of our environment? If we get into the beliefs, heritage and culture of indigenous peoples, we get a very encouraging reflection on our environment and how important it is that we are there for mother earth. We can think of UNDRIP and the recommendations through reconciliation. As a government, we made the commitment to respect UNDRIP and its ruling. We will continue to support that. That is also incorporated into the legislation. There are ideas about the toxic substances out there and how those substances could be labelled. It is important that the minister has the ability to ensure there is more transparency and accountability on this issue. Again, this is within the legislation. The expectation from the public as a whole is that information is knowledge. Finding out the content of many of these substances through labelling so the government can ensure there is higher transparency is a very strong positive. Those are three of the things I want to provide a brief comment on, as well as emphasize a couple of other points that are really quite encouraging. I talked about the idea of a right to a healthy environment. This morning there were a number of members who made reference to that aspect of the legislation. It is encouraging to hear members, whether from the Bloc or the NDP in particular, supporting that right in a very tangible way. It was interesting when one member of the Bloc suggested it should be incorporated into Canada's Constitution. Even the principles of protecting the environment and what could be incorporated into the Constitution interest me, but I do not think Canadians as a whole want to see that debate on the Constitution opened up, not at this time, and I suspect, not for quite a while. However, it emphasizes the point, which is the reason I make reference to it, that people are very much concerned about environmental rights. This bill not only talks about the importance of a right to a healthy environment, but also, for the first time, incorporates it into legislation. I see that as a very strong positive. We will get more details as time goes on as to how that is going to be assured, as well as the protocols and procedures that will be established to ensure Canadians feel comfortable knowing not only that they have that right to a healthy environment, but also that it is incorporated into the legislation for the very first time. I know the Green Party has some concerns with the legislation. It is with some admiration that I look to the leader of the Green Party and her history on this particular file. She had pointed back, I believe, to 1988. That was the year I was first elected, and I can say that, back in 1988, there was not much debate inside the Manitoba legislature about the environment. There is no doubt that over the last three decades we have seen a substantial growth of public debate and discussion on the issue of the environment. I would acknowledge that she is one Canadian who has been at the forefront of some of these environmental pushes. Where we disagree would be when I talk, for example, about the right to a healthy environment, I believe it is substantive, but I know members of the Green Party would have liked to have seen more to it than just the statements being referenced in the legislation. The idea of providing strength to the regulations regarding toxic chemicals, and the way in which government needs to play a very strong role, is absolutely critical, and this legislation deals with that. When I posed questions earlier to, and listened to comments from, in particular the Conservative Party, it was a Conservative member who seemed to be upset with the fact that there are too many regulations and too much paperwork involved with environmental policy. That is what he was making reference to. I would suggest that these regulations are really important. When we talk about toxic chemicals, legislation does not deal with every aspect of it. Rather, it establishes the framework. We rely on our civil servants to be able to provide the details, through regulations and other forums, so we know we are in fact doing what the principles of the legislation set forward in good part. Therefore, unlike what the Conservative member earlier today was trying to imply, I would suggest to members that good, solid environmental regulations are absolutely critical to supporting the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The member should not be shy in terms of recognizing that, but that was the only member who actually made reference to that. When the critic brought up the issue, I had posed the question in regard to why the Conservative Party had changed its positioning on this legislation, because the only thing we had really heard, officially, coming from the Conservative Party was in regard to the tailings ponds. If the Conservatives were to look at the tailings ponds issue, they would find that there is no substantive difference in terms of what came into the House of Commons during second reading, went into committee and then came back. I would challenge the Conservatives to explain that difference in terms of the degree to which it has caused the Conservative Party to reverse its policy position on the legislation. The bottom line is that, in regard to the issue of the environment, there is an obligation for legislative measures and budgetary measures. I asked the question in terms of how we mix those things in together, and I want to provide what is a fairly extensive listing of the types of things that we do to complement the legislation. Let us think of it in this way. This is what the Government of Canada is doing today: clean electricity investment tax credit; clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit; clean hydrogen investment tax credit; enhancing the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit; expanding the eligibility for clean technology investment tax credit; a clean electricity focus for the Canada Infrastructure Bank; supporting clean electricity projects such as the Atlantic Loop; securing major battery manufacturing here in Canada; delivering the Canada growth fund; enhancing the reduced tax rate for zero-emissions technology manufacturers; and supporting clean technology projects. There are so many things that one could actually make reference to with respect to the environment, including banning harmful single-use plastics and making zero-emissions vehicles that much more affordable. I have already commented extensively in the past about the price on pollution. These are all things, both budgetary measures and legislative measures, which the Government of Canada over the last number of years has put into place as a direct response to listening to what Canadians' expectation of the government is. We are bringing that to Ottawa, listening to what our constituents are saying and developing legislative and budgetary measures that support the desires of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and for good reason. All one needs to do is take a look at what is happening in our environment today and listen to what is happening around the world. Canada does have a leadership role to play, and this is a government that is living up to that leadership. We see every day, through the minister, with respect to the car he drives, the policies he announces and the budgets he presents to the House of Commons through the Minister of Finance, that this is a government that is committed to protecting our environment.

1756 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/29/23 4:17:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. It is almost as if my colleague from the Liberal Party has not actually paid that close attention to the developments that have taken place regarding Bill S-5. When this bill came from the Senate, there were some concerns. In fact, his party shared some of the concerns that the Conservative Party shares. At the environment committee, which I am pleased to be a part of, we were able to address some of those concerns and not play politics. We worked very diligently to try to find the appropriate balance that we thought would be acceptable to industry, to environmental advocacy groups and to those involved across the board. Not everybody was happy with the way Bill S-5 came out of committee, but certainly the result at that point in time was something that could be supported fairly broadly. What is interesting is that NDP members moved this amendment at committee, and the Liberals voted against it. Instead of working together, and instead of putting politics aside for the best interests of industry and environmental groups, the Liberals decided to kowtow to their coalition partners and to throw out the jurisdictional issues surrounding provinces and surrounding some of the very sensitive concerns with tailings ponds. Can this member say why, instead of working together, they decided to play politics with an issue that is so important to so many across this country?

240 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/29/23 4:19:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting in terms of everything this legislation has actually gone through, whether in the Senate committee meetings or the House of Commons committee meetings. I was not present during those House of Commons standing committee meetings, but I can tell members, from everything I have heard, that the Conservative Party's decision to not support Bill S-5 was because of an amendment that was brought forward by the NDP and then supported. It is an amendment that raises an issue in a public fashion. In terms of substantive action, though, I am not too sure. Can the member, who will likely get another question, tell us specifically what it is with that particular amendment that would have an outcome such that the Conservative Party has made the decision to ultimately change and flip-flop its position on Bill S-5, given the importance of this legislation? I would suggest that the member cannot clearly demonstrate that.

161 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/29/23 4:20:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a little aside to congratulate my colleague from Repentigny for her exceptional work in committee. In his speech, my colleague spoke about the issue of labelling. The Senate proposed all sorts of amendments concerning labelling, toxic substances and even GMOs. Why did the Liberals vote against these amendments? Will the Liberals promise to make labelling a focus of the next study to be undertaken soon?

71 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/29/23 4:21:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, we do know that there would be an ongoing review, because it is mandated from within, with regard to labelling. As I indicated to the member who just provided another question, I was not actually at the committee. What I do know is that there were committee amendments brought forward from different political entities, and I thought there was a high sense of political co-operation. We saw government amendments and also opposition amendments pass, and I suspect there would have been a more detailed answer to the specifics at the committee stage.

95 words

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

May/29/23 4:22:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, air pollution has very well documented human health risks, and we now know much more about the human health impacts of air pollution, especially particulate in the sub-2.5-micron range, such as from wood smoke. I am wondering why the bill would not address anything, in terms of binding and enforceable standards for air quality. It seems like a considerable omission.

65 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/29/23 4:22:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I am a former health critic for the Province of Manitoba. The quality of air, whether from stubble burning or forest fires, is an issue that came up periodically when I was acting in that capacity. There is no doubt that emergency facilities, doctors and so forth, fill up. Air pollution is very real. It is tangible. I was not part of every aspect of the legislation. I do not necessarily know exactly what the legislation would do with regard to air quality, but I would concur that it is an issue we should all be concerned about, and I suspect that, at some point in the future, we will even be dealing with it in a more detailed way.

122 words

All Topics

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

May/29/23 4:23:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was speaking before question period about this, and I know he spoke at length about the Conservative Party's flip-flops when it comes to the environment, in particular on the fact that all 338 candidates for the Conservative Party of Canada in the last election ran on a platform that priced pollution. Now, suddenly they do not, and I have heard only one member in the House actually say she regrets having run on that, and I applaud that member for that. I will not call her out by name, but she did such a great job in doing that. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would agree with me that more Conservatives should heed her leadership and stand up to say they regret having run on that commitment, considering they do not believe in it now.

144 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/29/23 4:24:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, who am I to defend the Conservatives? I can say that it would be awfully awkward when they take a look at their own party platform. We know that, as candidates, when we go knocking on doors, we are there supporting the party platform. All 338 Conservative candidates made it very clear in the last election that they do support a price on pollution. Some members have heckled that they take it back, but hindsight is 20/20. The bottom line is that they did do a flip-flop on that. The relevance to that issue, to what we are debating today, is that, once again, we see the Conservative Party taking a flip-flop on an important piece of environmental legislation. I think that Canadians would be very disappointed, given that it includes things such as the right to a healthy environment. The Conservatives are actually going to be voting against it.

155 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/29/23 4:25:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member for Winnipeg North for recognizing the more than three decades of work that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has put into environmental protection, such as what is in this bill. He spoke about working in a collaborative fashion. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands put forward two dozen amendments, amendments that, for example, would have ensured that the so-called right to a healthy environment is not just considered. We need rights protected. That is what her amendment would have ensured. However, as with every single amendment she presented, the same thing happened. They were all voted down. If the member for Winnipeg North believes in a collaborative approach and in the right to a healthy environment, could he speak to why the governing party did not support ensuring that the right is actually in this bill?

150 words