44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 29, 2023 11:00AM
- May/29/23 4:59:44 p.m.
- Watch
We have now fallen into complete debate.
Continuing debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:59:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have seconded the motion from the member for Kingston and the Islands just a moment ago. It was a good point.
As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health and the member of Parliament for Milton, I am proud to rise to speak on Bill S-5. It is important to take some time to speak to the work that our government has done on modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is our cornerstone environmental legislation.
In a nutshell, CEPA recognizes a right to a healthy environment, as provided under CEPA. It imposes a duty on the government to protect the right and uphold related principles such as environmental justice. It also requires ministers to develop an implementation framework within two years, and to conduct research to support the protection of the right.
It also is expected to support strong environmental and health standards now and into the future, robust engagement, new research and action to protect populations that are particularly vulnerable to environmental health risks.
On that topic, I think we would be remiss not to recognize that recently in Alberta, there have been tailings ponds leakages into the Athabasca River and various other tributaries that went unreported to communities that were affected downstream. This is exactly the type of activity that we need to prevent and legislate into law as unacceptable, to ensure that we are protecting people from these toxic substances.
In the previous speech, there were some numbers thrown around and I would just like to put into modern context a few of those numbers, if I could. I heard the member opposite refer to 500,000 pounds of material that would need to be extracted to build one car battery.
I completely accept that it requires mining to build a modern car battery. They are up to 1,000 pounds and they are certainly intensive when it comes to mining. That does not go without saying. To put that into context, though, 500,000 pounds is about 226,000 kilograms. That would equate to about 10 years of fuel, if one were to convert that to gasoline. An average car would use about 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms of gasoline every year. Do the math and, unless I have done it completely improperly, I think that equates.
What does it take to get gasoline? That is something that we did not necessarily have the opportunity to measure or consider.
In the context of the oil sands, that requires, every single time some fuel is removed through the process, four tonnes of sand and four barrels of fresh water just to make one barrel of synthetic oil. I will say that again: four tonnes of sand need to be excavated and then four barrels of fresh water need to be used and most of that is then stored in a tailings pond. It is important to recognize that those tailings ponds were never meant to be long-term solutions for that toxic substrate of the process, but they continue to be used in that form and fashion.
What do we get out of one barrel of synthetic oil? One would get 42 gallons of gasoline. That is 160 litres of fuel.
What did that require? It required four tonnes of sand to be removed. Four tonnes of sand is 4,000 kilograms of sand. We are now on a similar metric to what the member opposite was saying needed to be excavated to build one car battery, which would obviously be good for many trips.
I am fortunate enough to drive an electric car and I can say that I have driven 30,000 kilometres in the last year in that electric car without having to use any gasoline.
There is no question that the carbon footprint of one of these electric vehicles is higher on the first day that one drives it compared to an internal combustion engine, but the point is that it does not require any gasoline. If one compares the amount of sand that needs to be removed from the ground in order to produce one litre of gasoline to how much is required to produce a car battery, one realizes that, yes, cars require a lot of mining. We all know that. That is something we should know.
However, we also have to take into consideration how many acres and acres of boreal forest are necessary to clear for oil sands activity and how much water it requires in order to refine that bitumen down to a usable product.
Moving on from the topic of electric car batteries and gasoline, I would like to talk about how this bill, Bill S-5, strengthens the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances that are found in our environment through industry.
The bill would require an integrated plan of chemicals management priorities, with timelines and annual reporting. It would implement a new regime for toxic substances of highest risk.
It would create a watch-list for substances of potential concern, and consultation on new living organisms that would allow the public to request assessments, and ministers would have to address risks using the best balanced and best placed act.
It is really important to recognize that this is creating a framework for the future that would evolve as technology evolves and as new technologies are implemented and new forms of mining are implemented in our mining sector to go after all of the critical minerals that new technologies would require. Bill S-5 would evolve with it.
This bill would also confirm a focus on assessment of real-life exposures, supporting the shift to safer chemicals, replacing and reducing reliance on animal testing, increased openness, transparency and accountability in decision-making. It would also include amendments that affect all of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, including information gathering, research authorities, reporting on indigenous reconciliation and other confidential business information.
I would like to take a moment to reflect on something a little more personal. When my father's family first came to Canada from Holland, they moved to southwestern Ontario and engaged in agriculture. One of my father's first jobs was picking tobacco around the Tillsonburg area, which was a very common practice. Thankfully, the tobacco industry has fewer customers these days and there are fewer people farming tobacco.
It was not actually the tobacco plant that led to harm to my family so much as the product that was sprayed on those tobacco plants, Roundup is a very common insecticide that is still, unfortunately, used in many agricultural applications these days. It is a herbicide. I thank the member opposite. I do not know everything about this, so I am glad that we are working in a place that allows for us to collaborate a little.
Whatever the pest, Roundup was attempting to prevent the infestation of those tobacco plants. It also causes neurological degenerative diseases, like Parkinson's, which my dad suffers from, I should say lives with these days. He does not like to say that we suffer from diseases. It is very well documented that Roundup causes neurological, degenerative disorders like Parkinson's. My dad has been tested for the type of Parkinson's that he has, and indeed it is associated with a high exposure to herbicides, as my colleague point out. Roundup is in that category.
These chemicals that we have used throughout—
An hon. member: Glyphosate. Roundup is a trade name.
Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Roundup is a trade name, okay. Members can tell I did not grow up on a farm. I picked apples every once in a while. My apple farmer uncle, Gerry, who is now deceased, used to call me “the city boy” when I would come to the farm and pick apples. I guess he was right. Thanks for confirming my wise old Uncle Gerry's assertion that I was a city boy.
Glyphosate caused harm to my family. I will say that my dad has taken on his fight with Parkinson's with quite a lot of consternation. He is a really remarkable guy for managing his disease the way that he has. I do not think it is necessary for people to be exposed to things like that. I would hate to know what types of disorders and diseases tailings ponds and other toxic industrial applications might prove to impact folks with. I hope that we do not see more spillage, because that certainly was devastating for those communities that surrounded that.
Moving on, Bill S-5, known as CEPA, was introduced on February 9, 2022, more than a year ago. Since then, Senate committees and the House of Commons environmental committee have received 105 written briefs. If I compare that to how many briefs we receive at the health committee for similar pieces of legislation, I would say that is a lot. It is probably triple what we received for the most recent bill studying children's health. They have spent, collectively, over 50 hours studying that bill, with a lot of great input from experts, industry leaders and a tremendous number of witnesses at those committee hearings.
They have received over 80 witnesses' oral testimonies, and they have debated over 300 amendments tabled. This is one of the most debated pieces of legislation that we have seen in this House and through the Senate over the last couple of years. This excludes any of those subamendments because, of course, there have been considerable subamendments as well.
I think all members of this House can agree that there has been extensive debate around this bill during second reading in the House of Commons. This bill actually received more debate time than the budget implementation act would usually receive. I do believe we can all agree that it has had its time here to see the light of day.
Prior to those recent amendments, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, CEPA had not been updated in over two decades. Much has happened over the last two decades. A lot of new technologies have come to the fore and there are plenty of new chemicals to account for. We need to ensure they are not having a negative impact on people's health.
During this time, over the last two decades, we have certainly developed new technologies and we have deepened our understanding of toxic substances. Across the board, we are getting better at science, especially climate science. Our environmental legislation needs to reflect this important progress.
It has been said a number of times throughout debate today that this bill is not one that is focused on climate change; it is focused on toxic substances in our environment. I think that is very true. However, at the same time, we need to consider the impact of many of the industries that directly increase climate change and have a negative impact on climate change and warming, as well as the dryness of our climate currently and the incidents of wildfires and other horrendous natural disasters. They are all related, and we need a 360-degree view and a science-guided, evidence-first approach to preventing harm when it comes to the technologies that we are adapting to and all of the new methods by which we are going to get enough energy for transportation and for all the other things, like heating our homes, that we rely on. It is so important that our legislation advances forward with the technology and with all those new developments.
For the first time ever, CEPA recognizes the right to a healthy environment for Canadians. To ensure this right is meaningful and taken into account when decisions are made under CEPA, this bill includes a number of requirements.
For instance, it requires that the government must develop, within two years, an implementation framework describing how this right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of the act. This framework would explain, among other things, how principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity would be considered under CEPA. The framework would elaborate on principles such as environmental justice, meaning avoiding adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, and issues of non-regression for continuous improvement of environmental protection.
CEPA, as it is, is a very technical and lengthy bill. We have heard a lot of testimony from expert witnesses from all backgrounds. I think it is extremely thorough and I am glad it is one that most members in this House seem to support. In debate, we have heard from all parties and it seems like the majority of members do support this bill.
That said, we have also heard from constituents via email. I know I have. I have received some from fantastic, environmentally focused organizations in my riding.
One I want to point out is Sustainable Milton. Sustainable Milton is a group of concerned citizens who regularly take action to advocate for and directly clean up our environment. They are a wonderful group of people, and I want to give them a shout-out. They have led town cleanups in our community. I want to acknowledge that litter is a visual concern, for the most part. In our environment, it is annoying to see litter, but it is nothing compared to toxic substances that are going to have a deleterious impact on our health. However, Sustainable Milton has done a really great job leading these litter cleanups. I am grateful to have taken part in a couple, and I want to thank all of the councillors who led their own cleanups as well with the stewardship of Sustainable Milton.
I would also like to reference the Halton Environmental Network, which was actually cataloguing a lot of that litter and looking into whether some of it had any deleterious impacts on waterways and tributaries. Milton is a bit landlocked, but it has quite a lot of watershed down to the Lake Ontario area and the basin around there.
What we put into our environment matters. It has an impact on habitat, and it has an impact on the water we drink. I want to thank the Halton Environmental Network and Sustainable Milton for their stewardship and action on environmentally focused activities in Milton. I also want to thank them for their emails.
I have received dozens of emails from constituents asking our government to position Canada as a global leader in developing more non-invasive methods, non-animal methods and methods that are less harmful to our health and to the health of animals.
We know that we are connected to our environment, not just through the air that we breathe and the water that we drink, but also through the food chain. A lot of our food is produced locally. Last week, I had the chance to visit Monaghan Mushrooms, a farm in my riding that produces fully three-quarters of the local mushrooms that our community consumes. If someone had a mushroom omelette in the last couple of weeks, I would encourage them to have a look at the label. I would bet the mushrooms were produced in Milton, Ontario. Those are all the button and portobello mushrooms. Then there is also another farm in Milton that produces all the specialty mushrooms. I learned a lot about fungus last week.
What I know is that those mushrooms, as they are being produced, drink the same tap water we do. They require soil, which is produced locally, actually through manure from Woodbine Racetrack. They actually provide a service to Woodbine Racetrack, one of the largest horse-racing facilities in Canada. They take all of the horse manure and put it directly into a compost mix, and that compost is then used to produce mushrooms.
Why am I going on about horse manure and mushrooms? It is because the horses that race at Mohawk racetrack in Milton drink the water from the surrounding area, and if they are like the animals in my life, they sometimes just drink from puddles. They eat grasses and locally produced vegetation, and then their excrement leads to something that is used to produce the food that we consume on a daily basis.
We are all connected through the water that we drink, the air that we breathe and the food that we consume. It is so important to make sure that the toxic chemicals that might exist in only a very small percentage in things like grasses, table water or any of a variety of things do not biomagnify all the way up into something that we consume on a regular basis and then have a deleterious impact on our health.
At committee, members heard from Dr. Chandrasekera, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods, an international expert in this field, who presented technological innovations that have been made in producing viable alternatives to animals for testing. Health Canada is working to address the issue of animal testing outside of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Our government has also passed a motion that would see the requirement to report on the operation of the act with respect to indigenous peoples to be done annually, rather than just once every five years. That revised requirement ensures consistent annual reporting on all issues raised by indigenous groups in relation to this act. These motions will improve transparency and ensure that the government remains accountable.
We know that climate change is a real threat that affects all Canadians, and now more than ever we must have strong environmental protections to protect our health from toxic substances that enter our natural environment. Our country has an opportunity to be a leader in climate policy, and passing an updated, strengthened CEPA is absolutely vital to this.
In closing, I would like to say that in previous speeches today I have heard quite a lot of talk about tailings ponds and whether this is a bill related to climate change. I think I have touched on how it is related to climate change but possibly in more of a tangential way. Climate change is real. I know this is not something that is universally held as a conviction in this House. Unfortunately, some people like to talk about historical accounts as to how much ice was above certain towns or cities in Canada. That probably would not be true if one were to consult a historian or a paleoclimatologist.
However, the fact remains that we have an obligation as a country, as a government, to stand up for the health and wellness of Canadians, and that includes animals and vegetation, because those products do biomagnify into our biology as well.
3141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:19:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, the member's last comment talked about the health and wellness of Canadians. I wonder if he would consider the impact of the carbon tax, which is adding thousands of dollars to Canadians' cost of living and fuel costs. It has an impact.
I just want to make a quick comment also that in British Columbia we had something called “AirCare”, which tested vehicles for about two decades. Then it was scrapped because the pollutants from vehicles were reduced so dramatically. I just wonder why the focus is not on technology, as opposed to taxes, which have failed. The Liberals have not yet met any of their climate objectives.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:20:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, the question was about carbon pricing, which is not directly related to CEPA, but I am happy to talk about it.
I would point out that in the great province of my colleague opposite who asked the question, there is no federal backstop program because there is a provincial government that prices carbon, and always has. If I am not mistaken, that was an action by the previous Liberal government in British Columbia. I know there are some members on the Conservative side who sat in that government at the time. Perhaps he knows one of the members opposite who sat in that Liberal government. I know the Liberals in B.C. might have more in common sometimes with some of the members of the Conservative Party here.
Carbon pricing works. That is a truth. That is something the Conservatives universally felt, just a little over a year ago, when they all ran on a promise to implement a carbon price in Canada, but they have had an about-face. The new leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton, does not believe in carbon pricing. At a recent Conservative convention, there was a question as to whether or not climate change exists and it was a pretty tight vote. I do not recall exactly what the breakdown was, but it seems that most Conservative members are still on the fence as to whether or not climate change exists.
However, what is irrefutable is that carbon pricing works. I am grateful for the leadership of British Columbia and the aforementioned Liberal government there that instituted that and proved, decades ago, that carbon pricing is effective at reducing our emissions.
282 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:21:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, we learned a lot from the speech given by my colleague from Milton. There were some very interesting things in there, including the fact that he ate some portobello mushrooms. I want him to know that I too like mushrooms, oyster mushrooms.
I would like to be a little more serious, unlike this government. Speaking of serious, the environment does not seem to be a priority for the federal government. Why do I say that? When did we begin working on Bill S-5, which is currently before the House? It was in February 2016 in committee. Of course, committee work and reports have been done. Which party was in government at the time? It was the Liberal Party. Which government introduced the previous version, Bill C-28? This is the same government that introduced that bill and then called an election. It could have resolved the whole situation several years ago.
Today, Bill S-5 has very little depth. A quarter of the implementation will be done through regulations issued by the minister over the next two years. However, we are in a climate emergency.
Do the Liberals not understand this or are they just used to not moving quickly? Why this lack of will and courage? I would like my colleague to explain to me whether he is prepared to include in the charter the right to a healthy environment, as Quebec is so courageously doing right now?
242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:23:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if my colleague did not like my speech on mushrooms, which are a very important source of copper. That is something I did not know a week ago.
I want to come back to the topic of leadership and courage in Bill S‑5. The question is, why did the government have the courage to create and consider a bill similar to the Government of Quebec? The answer is in the question. It is right there. It is the same thing in British Columbia. The provincial governments, in every case, take a position of leadership and courage.
It is important that provinces take a leadership position, and governments like those in Quebec and B.C. have done that in environmental causes and many others.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:24:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member for Milton and his work on the health file.
Health Canada has found that air pollution is a factor in 15,300 premature deaths and millions of respiratory issues every year in Canada, yet this bill has nothing in it about air quality standards. We need to have enforceable air quality standards in Canada, but this bill does not mention it at all. The air flows between provinces. We see that with the smoke coming out of Alberta.
Why did the government leave air quality completely out of this bill and vote down proposed amendments to fix this?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:25:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is a really good question. I would also like to say that I have a tremendous respect for my colleague on and off the soccer pitch.
I will be completely honest and forthcoming. I was not on the environment committee, and I do not know why decisions were made with respect to this bill, but I also know that a bill, if it tries to do everything, might achieve nothing. In this case, this bill focuses on some areas of environmental protection and the right to a clean environment, and it will achieve those things. If there is further legislation required to ensure we all have clean air to breathe, then I would be the first to suggest that our government has an obligation to ensure just that.
I was at an event last week with some of the foremost environmentalists in the country and heard a lot of criticisms, but there was also some support for the work we are doing as a government. We get more done when we work together and come together and focus on solutions as a group, so I would like to thank the members of the NDP for their support, their good amendments and saying that they are going to vote for this bill, because Bill S-5 is an important bill for the health and wellness of Canadians and the right to a clean environment, and I hope it will receive unanimous support from all members.
247 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:27:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the member had the opportunity to listen to the speech before his, where a Conservative started to suggest that acid rain was a hoax or something put out there to sell people things. I am not sure if now is a good time to inform that member that it was actually the Conservative Government of Canada that literally saved the world. It brought the world together to talk about the ozone layer and to save the world. It was a Conservative Government of Canada, led by Brian Mulroney, that brought 42 countries together to talk about the ozone layer and that fought with George Bush senior to do something about acid rain. Those were true Progressive Conservatives who believed in doing everything we could do. They believed in Canada taking a leadership role when it came to saving the environment.
I wonder if the member can reflect on the Conservative Party of the past versus the Conservative Party of today.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:28:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I would be absolutely thrilled to.
Gone are the times when Canadians could rely on Conservative-elected politicians to be real with them about climate change. Back in the day, in the eighties and nineties, Brian Mulroney indeed was a leader. He fought against acid rain. He also believed in fair taxation. He brought forward a really effective wealth tax called the GST at the time, now called the HST, that has thankfully endured. It is an important tax that Canadians rely on. These were good ideas that previous Conservative governments put forth.
Unfortunately, I have not heard any of those types of solutions from any Conservatives of late. I am sure they are there somewhere. They proposed a carbon pricing mechanism in their last campaign. They have abandoned that now. I do not know where those ideas went, if they have just evaporated into the ether around Durham region, but the fact remains that there have to be some good ideas over on the other side. Good legislation gets built when multipartisan groups come together to focus on solutions, so we would love to hear some solutions, such as how we can combat things like acid rain or tax Canadians fairly.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:29:30 p.m.
- Watch
Continuing debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has the floor.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:29:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although I want to hear the member for Peace River—Westlock speak to this issue, I move, seconded by the member for Foothills, that:
The member for Battle River—Crowfoot be now heard.
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:32:29 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the Chamber wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:32:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think we need to let the members decide. I request a recorded division.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:32:58 p.m.
- Watch
Call in the members.
Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:15:07 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies has a point of order.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:15:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is in regard to my vote. I was torn, as I wanted to vote for both members, and in my ignorance I voted for both members. I felt loyal to both of them, but when push comes to shove, I will vote for the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:16:00 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is rising.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:16:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was equally torn, but in the situation, I was voting for the member for Peace River—Westlock.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:16:18 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion defeated.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.
15 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
