Bill S-5

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act

This enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) recognize that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under that Act;
(b) provide that the Government of Canada must protect that right as provided under that Act, and, in doing so, may balance that right with relevant factors;
(c) require the development of an implementation framework that sets out how that right will be considered in the administration of that Act, and require that research, studies or monitoring activities be conducted to support the Government of Canada in protecting that right;
(d) authorize the Minister of the Environment to add to the Domestic Substances List certain substances that were in commerce in Canada and subject to the Food and Drugs Act between January 1, 1987 and September 13, 2001, and provide that any substance may be deleted from the List when it is no longer in commerce in Canada;
(e) require that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health develop a plan that specifies the substances to which those Ministers are satisfied priority should be given in assessing whether they are toxic or capable of becoming toxic;
(f) provide that any person may request that those Ministers assess a substance;
(g) require the Minister of the Environment to compile a list of substances that that Minister and the Minister of Health have reason to suspect are capable of becoming toxic or that have been determined to be capable of becoming toxic;
(h) require that, when those Ministers conduct or interpret the results of certain assessments — or conduct or interpret the results of a review of decisions of certain governments — in order to determine whether a substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic, they consider available information on whether there is a vulnerable population in relation to the substance and on the cumulative effects that may result from exposure to the substance in combination with exposure to other substances;
(i) provide that certain substances be classified as substances that pose the highest risk based on, among other things, their properties or characteristics;
(j) require that those Ministers give priority to the total, partial or conditional prohibition of activities in relation to toxic substances that are specified in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 , or to the total, partial or conditional prohibition of releases of those substances into the environment, when regulations or instruments respecting preventive or control actions in relation to those substances are developed;
(k) expand certain regulation-making, information-gathering and pollution prevention powers under that Act, including by adding a reference to products that may release substances into the environment;
(l) allow the risks associated with certain toxic substances to be managed by preventive or control actions taken under any other Act of Parliament, and the obligations under sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to be the responsibility of whoever of the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Health is best placed to fulfil them;
(m) expand the powers of the Minister of the Environment to vary either the contents of a significant new activity notice with respect to a substance not on the Domestic Substances List or the contents of the List itself with respect to a substance on the List that is subject to the significant new activities provisions of that Act;
(n) extend the requirement, to notify persons of the obligation to comply with the significant new activity provisions of that Act when a substance that is subject to those provisions is transferred to them, so that it applies with respect to substances on the Domestic Substances List, and authorize that Minister to limit by class the persons who are required to be notified of the obligation when a substance that is subject to those provisions is transferred to them; and
(o) require that confidentiality requests made under section 313 of the Act be accompanied by reasons, and to allow the Minister of the Environment to disclose the explicit chemical or biological name of a substance or the explicit biological name of a living organism in certain circumstances.
The enactment also makes related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act to enable the assessment and management of risks to the environment associated with foods, drugs, cosmetics and devices by, among other things,
(a) prohibiting persons from conducting certain activities in respect of a drug unless the Minister of Health has conducted an assessment of the risks to the environment presented by certain substances contained in that drug;
(b) enabling the Minister of Health to take measures in respect of the risks to the environment that a drug may present throughout its life cycle; and
(c) providing the Governor in Council with supporting regulation-making authorities.
Finally, the enactment repeals the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act .

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

moved that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Elizabeth May]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, generally speaking, what we have seen over the last couple of weeks is that members in the opposition and in government have asked for the opportunity to share time. That is all this is; there is nothing mischievous.

The member for Winnipeg South just wants to do the same as others have done, given that it is the opening round, so maybe we could ask again if the member has unanimous support to split his time this morning.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has a point of order.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is a point of order. I am trying to explain the concern that, while this may be routine, members in my position, when there is a 10-minute speech and a five-minute round, virtually never get a chance to ask a question. Bill S-5 is an enormously important bill to the Green Party—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate. I will ask the question one more time.

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her understanding on this matter and allowing my colleague to split time with me.

I am very pleased today to rise in support of Bill S-5. My remarks will focus on the government's accomplishments under its chemicals management plan, commonly known as CMP. This is relevant to Bill S-5, as these accomplishments have largely been achieved under the authorities of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA.

Before I go on, I really want to thank all senators for their important work in the other place to bring the bill to this place so we can further consider it. The government has learned many lessons from the implementation of the CMP, and these have informed areas where the government is proposing changes to CEPA through Bill S-5.

In 2006, the government completed the categorization and prioritization of approximately 23,000 substances on the domestic substances list. This resulted in a list of more than 4,300 substances prioritized for further assessment based on their potential risk to the environment or human health.

Following this prioritization, Canada launched its chemicals management plan. Canada became the first country in the world to triage and announce a plan to systematically address its in-commerce chemicals based on environmental and human health concerns. This approach has gone on to inspire chemicals management approaches around the world, such as in the United States, Australia, Argentina and Brazil.

Nearly all of the approximately 4,300 prioritized substances have now been assessed. Chemicals assessment approaches have evolved since that list of 4,300 prioritized substances was first established. New chemicals have entered Canadian commerce, and our knowledge of risks we can protect Canadians from has grown. Therefore, a new process for prioritizing substances for assessment is required.

The changes proposed by Bill S-5 would include working with Canadians to develop and publish a plan of chemicals management priorities, which would, among other things, continue to build on Canada's world-class leadership in science-based decision-making while adopting a more collaborative and inclusive approach to setting priorities for substances to be assessed going forward. This new approach is intended to be flexible, nimble and scalable, and would allow for shifts and adaptations to new priorities as needed or as new information emerges.

The CMP is a science-based approach to substances management. It helps to reduce the risks posed by substances that are harmful to Canadians and the environment in a way that is predictable and transparent. This is accomplished by assessing not only the impact of substances in end-of-pipe emissions or transboundary pollution, but also their presence in food, consumer products, cosmetics, drugs, air and drinking water.

Members of our scientific community apply internationally adopted standards, methods and principles to the work carried out under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Canada's approach to chemicals management is in line with that of other jurisdictions and is the foundation behind our international reputation of well-respected, science-based chemicals assessment. Bill S-5 builds on this foundation rooted in science and positions Canada well among other jurisdictions, both as a leader and as a contributor to chemicals assessment at large. I would caution MPs from changing the risk assessment and risk management provisions of the act.

As part of the CMP, the government overhauled its substances assessment process to include new tools. With these innovations, the government went from assessing just a few dozen substances each year to an average of over 300 per year. Where risks are identified, controls can be put in place. Since the launch of CMP in 2006, the government has developed measures to manage close to 500 substances assessed as posing a risk to human health or the environment.

One of the early accomplishments under the CMP was to help protect newborns and infants from exposure to bisphenol A, more commonly know as BPA. Following a risk assessment under the CMP in 2008, the government announced its intent to prohibit the manufacture, import, advertisement and sale of polycarbonate baby bottles containing BPA under the Hazardous Products Act, an action which continues today under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. With this prohibition, newborn and infant exposure to BPA, which has the potential to affect brain development, social behaviour and anxiety after birth, declined by 96% between 2008 and 2014.

One of the lessons learned from this risk management action on BPA was the merit of meeting the risk management obligations under CEPA using other federal acts. Under Bill S-5, CEPA would be amended with this practice in mind and would enable the federal act or the minister best placed to manage the risks identified in a CEPA risk assessment for a toxic substance.

In addition to the innovative approaches to risk assessment and risk management since the CMP began, the government has also made advancements in research, monitoring and surveillance that have informed a range of actions taken under the authorities of CEPA. For example, monitoring initiatives funded under the CMP are instrumental for tracking levels of substances in both humans and the environment. Through the health measures survey, the government has obtained nationally representative biomonitoring data since 2007 of over 250 substances in the general Canadian population. These surveys have demonstrated that Canadians' exposures to many toxic substances have decreased over this time.

Biomonitoring can help inform Canadians about the progress that is being made to help reduce their exposure to harmful substances and can help identify new priorities for risk assessment. Bill S-5 would require the Minister of Health to conduct biomonitoring surveys as part of the obligation to conduct research and studies in relation to the health effects of substances. An additional amendment to clarify is that such research and studies, including biomonitoring surveys, may relate to vulnerable populations.

Bill S-5 would also amend CEPA to require the consideration of vulnerable populations and cumulative effects in risk assessments when information is available, which will improve the protection of Canadians and the environment. As vulnerable populations may be disproportionately exposed to or negatively impacted by harmful substances due to factors such as age, behaviour, health status, geography, culture and socio-economic status, it is important that we understand and take into consideration implicated groups' unique characteristics and needs when assessing and managing risks identified.

The reality is that Canadians and their environment are not exposed to substances in isolation, but to multiple different substances on a daily basis and over a lifetime, which is why it is so important to consider the cumulative effects of substances. Including these considerations in an amended CEPA will also help inform additional biomonitoring work to inform regulations.

To conclude, I urge all members to work together to ensure that this bill gets to committee as soon as possible in order for parliamentarians to start their important work.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a bill that many of us have been waiting for for some time. It mentions, in its preamble, the right for Canadians to live in a healthy environment. I have a private member's bill, Bill C-219, which we will be hearing about later this fall, that talks about the environmental bill of rights, a right to live in a healthy environment, that would extend across the whole federal mandate, not just within CEPA, as this does.

Could the member comment on whether the government would consider amending Bill S-5 to take into account the stronger language from my bill about individual rights to live in a healthy environment, or even on whether the government would accept all the amendments that the Senate put forward? This bill needs to be fixed to be made more actionable when it comes to that right.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is a leader in the area of environmental protection. I look forward learning more about Bill C-219. We would consider it at that time.

I just want to assure the hon. member that we are going to have a very robust process at committee. The minister and I, and others, have indicated that we are certainly open to strengthening the bill. The Senate did some excellent work, which I think we can build on. I want to thank the hon. member for the question.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues in other parties who have held back so I could ask this question.

Further to the excellent points made by the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, I want to direct the hon. parliamentary secretary to the observations filed by the Senate's Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources that accompanied the amendments. They are to the point and they say very clearly that we do not have a right to a healthy environment in Bill S-5, no matter how much the propaganda tells us we do.

I will quote from point 4 of its important submission:

This committee would like to state their concern that the right to a healthy environment cannot be protected unless it is made truly enforceable. This enforceability would come by removing the barriers that exist to the current remedy authority within Section 22...

The point closes with this sentence: “As Bill S-5 does not propose the removal or re-evaluation of these barriers, this Committee is concerned that the right to a healthy environment may remain unenforceable.” Is the government prepared to do what the Senate committee has challenged it to do and what Canadians expect it to do?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time in the history of CEPA that a right to a healthy environment is there, front and centre. That will be debated in the House and at committee. The hon. member would have the opportunity to make those points again. As the hon. member would know, the bill, which was formerly Bill C-28 and is now Bill S-5, gives two years to codify and specify all of the conditions to implement that right to a healthy environment.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government claims that this modernized legislation will create a right to a healthy environment. That is not the case, according to the senior officials who presented the bill to parliamentarians when it was introduced.

Does the member of the governing party agree that this legislation does not go far enough?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc would get their opportunity to weigh in, not only in the House, but also at committee to propose amendments. Again, a right to a healthy environment was very much considered an innovation that was not in the previous CEPA and is now in Bill S-5. If hon. members have suggestions on how to strengthen that, we would be open to that debate.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and good friend, the member for Winnipeg South, for sharing his time today. I also thank members of the House for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning.

I am really pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill S-5, strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act, particularly to government proposals and Senate amendments relating to a right to a healthy environment in the bill.

Before I get into the substance of our proposal and the Senate amendments, I would like to remind the House that it has taken decades of work to get to where we are today. Discussions relating to a right to a healthy environment have been taking place domestically for many years, with many Canadians, civil society organizations and indigenous leaders advocating for a recognition of a right to a healthy environment at the federal level. There have also been discussions with industry associations supporting recognition in the preamble of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, as it is commonly called.

I would also like to acknowledge the important contribution of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to these discussions. It is a committee that I was part of and that recognized the need to update the CEPA legislation. I would like to recognize the work of the committee under then chair Deb Schulte, and colleagues Will Amos and Mike Bossio, who also played key leadership roles in this study.

In 2017, our committee called on the federal government to strengthen CEPA to provide greater protection to human and environmental health from toxic substances and unanimously recommended, among other things, that the preamble of CEPA be amended to explicitly “recognize a right to a healthy environment”. I commend our committee for the insights and ideas put forth over the years to enhance the protection of the environment and human health for present and future generations of Canadians. All those efforts brought us to this point today.

The government is proposing to strengthen the protection of all Canadians and the environment from pollution and harmful substances through the amendments proposed in Bill S-5. To that end, the government has proposed to recognize in the preamble of CEPA that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under the act. This is the first time that this right has been proposed for inclusion in a federal statute in Canada. This is huge.

Recognition of a right to a healthy environment under CEPA is a significant milestone in and of itself. However, the government is doing more to elaborate on this right and its implementation for the purposes of the act. The red chamber made amendments to this part of the bill, as members know, and I look forward to building further on those amendments.

The bill, as amended by the Senate, would include specific requirements of the government with respect to a healthy environment under the act. First is a duty on the government to protect that right when administering the act, subject to any reasonable limits. Second is a requirement to develop an implementation framework to set out how that right would be considered in the administration of the act. Among other things, the framework must include consideration of the principles of environmental justice, the idea of avoiding adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations; non-regression, the idea of continuous improvement in environmental protection; and intergenerational equity, the idea of meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. These provisions would mark the first time that the federal government has introduced legislation requiring that it elaborate on the consideration of the principles of environmental justice and non-regression in the administration of an act.

The framework must also elaborate on the reasonable limits to which that right is subject, resulting from the consideration of relevant factors, including social, health, scientific and economic factors. The consideration of factors reflects the fact that no right is absolute, but it must be meaningful and considered in context.

Moreover, the bill would require that the implementation framework on the right to a healthy environment be developed within two years of the amendments coming into force. This would ensure that our commitment to implement this right is delivered on a timely basis while, at the same time, allowing for meaningful input and engagement from all parts of Canadian society, including indigenous groups, civil society organizations and industry. As transparency is key to fostering dialogue and moving forward on environmental protection, the implementation framework would also be published, so it would be available to all Canadians, and it would be reported on to Parliament annually.

The implementation framework is expected to set a path for a progressive implementation of a right to a healthy environment under CEPA and to evolve over time, based on the views of Canadians and the experience gained by the government. It is expected to provide relevant and persuasive guidance to officials to inform the decision-making processes under the act, and is part of interpreting and applying the act.

Third, this bill contains a requirement to conduct research, with studies or monitoring, to support the government in protecting this right. This is intended to ensure the government and future governments can make decisions about how to protect this right based on scientific evidence. This requirement must contribute to efforts to address environmental justice issues. For example, it should involve the collection and analysis of data to identify and monitor populations and communities that are particularly vulnerable to environmental and health risks from toxic substances and the cumulative effects of such substances. In turn, this could lead to new thinking on how to better protect such populations.

These requirements would allow for meaningful recognition, with the opportunity for Canadians to have input into how this right would be considered in CEPA and the path toward its progressive implementation. Applying the lens of a right to a healthy environment to the administration of CEPA is expected to encourage new thinking about how to protect populations that are particularly vulnerable to environmental and health risks and provide continued support for strong environmental and health standards, now and in the future.

In addition to these new provisions on a right to a healthy environment under CEPA, there would be a number of complementary changes to the act to assist in addressing environmental justice issues in Canada.

Certain populations and communities face greater exposure to harmful substances and combinations of substances. They are in areas of concentrated pollution, sometimes referred to as pollution hot spots. Under the bill to amend CEPA, decisions under CEPA would need to consider vulnerable populations, groups of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances. In addition, our duty to make decisions and exercise powers under CEPA would expressly include protecting the health of vulnerable populations. This would be done, in part, through consideration of available information regarding vulnerable populations in risk assessments.

The Minister of Health would be required to conduct biomonitoring surveys, specifically in relation to the health effects of substances. These biomonitoring surveys could focus on vulnerable populations. These new research requirements are intended to be complementary to the research requirements related to a right to a healthy environment, and the data and information they generate might lead to new thinking on how to better protect all Canadians from pollution and substances. These new research requirements are also expected to contribute to our efforts to better understand real life exposure, including exposures in vulnerable populations, and would assist in providing environmental and health protection for all.

Finally, the preamble of CEPA would confirm the government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This aligns with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which received royal assent on June 21, 2021, and which provides a framework to advance implementation of the declaration at the federal level.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not only revealed, but has also further exacerbated, social, health and economic disparities for indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and other racialized and religious minority Canadians and their communities. We cannot delay efforts to make Canada more just, more inclusive and more resilient. We see these proposals as one of the means to combat inequities in environmental protection in Canada, such as the increased health risks of more vulnerable members of society that can result from the exposure to substances and the cumulative effects from a combination of substances.

These proposals would help advance discussions so that the vulnerability and the impacts of real life exposure are taken into account in environmental and health protection under the act. As the bill moves through the House, we are committed to engaging with colleagues in the days and weeks to come to move forward in support of strong environmental and health standards now and into the future.

I must point out that Bill S-5 would be a strong start to updating CEPA. The Senate amendments are strong and must be accepted. However, I believe further amendments, which I hope to see seriously considered at committee, are in order. I recognize CEPA is complex legislation. It would be difficult to update in one effort. I would like to see updates addressing marine dumping, establishing air quality standards and implementing stronger citizen action. If these issues could be addressed, the legislation would be further strengthened, either now or in the future.

Bill S-5 would go a long way to updating CEPA. More can be done, both now and in the future. I encourage all MPs to ensure we leave a positive legislative legacy as we update CEPA for the first time in more than 20 years. I look forward to thoughtful debate, the strengthening of amendments and a timely passage of this important legislation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my many colleagues who gave me this chance to ask questions.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Cloverdale—Langley City, and I agree that there are many sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that need amendment, which are not dealt with in Bill S-5. I hope we can bring them forward soon.

I have actually been working on the bill for 35 years, since I helped prepare it for first reading in 1987, but that dates me pretty badly. However, one of the things that needs fixing is that we are not addressing genetically-modified organisms, which are in part 6 of CEPA and definitely need updating. We are also not dealing, as the hon. colleague said, with improvements to ocean dumping, but I want to come back to the point that I made in the first question.

A right to a healthy environment is not a right if it is not enforceable. Is the government open to getting rid of the two-year period, create the right to a healthy environment and fix the enforceability sections of CEPA so that Canadians have the right to a healthy environment? A right that is not enforceable is no right right at all.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for all of her work, over a lifetime, on environmental issues, including on CEPA. She has been a mentor and a friend to me, and I look forward to working with her on possible amendments for this legislation.

To the point on the right to a healthy environment, as I commented in my notes, this is the first time that government legislation has included this type of right within its preamble. Can more be done? Absolutely, but I think that this is a really strong point for legislation to start. We do have other pieces of legislation to expand on it, as we have heard from our NDP colleague, but I think that now is the time to look at how we can further strengthen the right to a healthy environment within the discussions and amendments that we are bringing before the House at this time.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, when we conducted the committee report in, I believe, 2017, I was a staffer, and all parties worked very closely together on the work at the environment committee at that time. When the member was giving his speech, I thought back to the long discussions we had in 2017 on the role of toxic chemicals and management, and some of the recommendations put forward on the chemicals management plan, which allowed for any Canadian to submit data, evidence and arguments for consideration under that plan.

Would Bill S-5 allow for more citizen participation in environmental concerns as recommended by the committee in recommendation 24?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and neighbour from British Columbia for his question and for his work on the committee report. As he said, he was a staffer at the time and had great input, and it is a pleasure to see him now representing his constituents in the House.

On the question of the whole citizen engagement piece, I think there are aspects within the bill where citizen action can be taken. Complaints can be relayed to the minister. We have heard from environmental groups that they see opportunities to strengthen that aspect of the legislation. As we have these debates in the House and as we take the legislation to committee, there will be opportunities to look at further citizen engagement as we look at having a healthier environment and protecting public health.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the current bill is the same as Bill C-28, which was introduced in the previous Parliament.

Does my colleague know why the government chose to call an election before passing the bill? Was it because, for the government, getting a majority was more important than this environmental legislation, or does he think it was because the government needed to get the hon. member re-elected to make it easier to pass the bill?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, regrettably, I was not here in the 43rd Parliament, but I was here in the 42nd Parliament when I did work on the committee report. However, I am delighted to be back and to be part of the discussions in the 44th Parliament as we try to bring home the much-needed changes to CEPA, which is why I am so delighted to see Bill S-5 before the House today, having had the Senate consider it and I think strengthen the legislation. I am happy to be here as part of the debates today.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honour to be able to speak to Bill S-5 today. I thought I would start off my remarks by pointing out the major differences between the Conservative record on the environment and the Liberal record on the environment.

Conservatives, of course, have a much stronger record when it comes to tackling environmental issues than Liberals. Looking back at the previous Conservative governments and our major achievements, including the clean air act, which was a landmark piece of legislation to tackle various forms of pollution and to develop a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there were massive investments in conservation.

The root word of Conservative is to conserve. That ties in with conservation. The previous Conservative government had many instances where we indicated much of Canada's natural beauty in our landscape for conservation projects to make sure that future generations would be able to enjoy the wonderful environment that has been passed on to us, protecting wetlands and vulnerable ecosystems for both plant and wildlife. That was a hallmark aspect of the previous Conservative government's achievements when it came to environmental action.

Major investments in innovation funds to help tackle some of the challenging aspects of having a robust, industrialized country, while at the same time, minimizing our environmental footprint, ensuring that there are resources available for companies and for not-for-profits to access some of that research funding to come up with better ways of doing things, better ways of making things and producing things here to lower all of the different kinds of impacts on the environment, that was a hallmark piece of the previous government's record on the environment as well.

I should mention as well that under the previous Conservative government, because of our strong action on things like emissions and tackling climate change, CO2 emissions actually went down. We actually reduced the amount of CO2 that Canada emitted into the atmosphere under the previous Conservative government. What has it done under the current Liberal government? It has gone up. That is the major difference between Conservatives and Liberals. The Liberals are very good at talking about things. I have to give them credit. They have an actor for a leader and he is very good at getting into the parts and delivering the lines, but when it comes to action, they are not so good. He is very good acting, but not so much at action.

Think about the very first thing the Liberal government did, one of the very initial things, while the ink was still wet on all those cabinet appointments and they were all just learning where their new offices would be and who was going to drive their cars. The very first thing that they did was to grant a permit to the City of Montreal to dump billions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. It is unbelievable. After all the talk they did during the election pretending to care about the environment, the first thing they did was grant that permit. How gross is that? We are talking about toxic substances here in this bill. What about the toxic substances that were unleashed into the St. Lawrence and ultimately into the oceans all around the world by the Liberal government? It was the first thing it did.

The government's hallmark piece is a carbon tax that we now know does not work. It has had the carbon tax in place since its first term in office. It has gone up every year, and so too have emissions. It is not an environmental plan at all; it is a tax plan. Remember too that the Liberal government has been completely dishonest with Canadians about that piece. Yes, they were dishonest. I will remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North about the dishonesty of one of his former colleagues.

Just before the 2019 election, the former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, promised Canadians that the carbon tax would not go up. In fact, we Conservatives warned Canadians that we had information from the Department of the Environment that the government was planning to increase the carbon tax. Catherine McKenna, the former environment minister, was deployed to accuse Conservatives of spreading misinformation, saying it is never going to happen.

Of course, their friends in the government-subsidized media were only too happy to carry that message for them. They asked how the Conservatives could make up such a wild accusation that the Liberals might raise a tax, and we said it is because that is what their information and their own documents show and if we look at their modelling, in order to even try to hit the targets they have set for themselves, they are going to have to increase the carbon tax. The response from their friends in the government-subsidized media was that it is not true because the Liberals say so. After seven years of Liberal rule, members will pardon those of us in the official opposition if we do not take Liberals at their word.

In the last Parliament, we were talking about toxic substances. I had a private member's bill to ban that practice of dumping raw sewage into our vulnerable ecosystems, our rivers, lakes and oceans.

Putting an end to the practice of municipalities dumping sewage into our rivers, lakes and oceans is a central element of the environmental plan the Conservatives have been promising since 2019. It is now 2022, and it is time to put an end to this practice.

It is 2022. We have the technology and resources to make sure that municipalities are not doing that with untreated waste water, but the Liberals, the NDP, members of the Bloc Québécois, all voted against that common-sense measure. Members will pardon those of us in the Conservative Party when we receive a piece of legislation that claims to address environmental issues and we have major concerns about everything the Liberals do on this.

Bill S-5 is not before this House in its original form. Bill S-5 went through the Senate first, so the piece of legislation that we are dealing with today has been amended by the Senate. There are many concerning things about these amendments and there are some concerning things about the bill in general.

First is the amendment on the right to a healthy environment. Of course, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has pointed out the lack of clarity about that, the lack of provisions that would make any of that enforceable or anything that would give Canadians comfort to know that the government would follow up a platitude with a piece of action. It is undefined and very ambiguous, and when legislation is ambiguous, it really sets us up for litigation.

Often there are competing interests when it comes to environmental issues between industry and conservation groups or municipalities that might be affected by one thing or another, and it is essential that we have clarity on these types of things. Otherwise, we get long-drawn-out court battles to decide what word means what and where lines get drawn. If the government was going to bring in this piece of legislation, the least it could have done was clear up that ambiguity and not leave it for the courts and lawyers, but of course Liberals often do things that make lots of money for lawyers to settle things in court.

I also want to touch on another major flaw with the thinking behind the government as it relates to toxic substances. Henry Hazlitt wrote an excellent book about economics primarily, but it is a lesson that we should apply in every aspect of life. The book is called Economics in One Lesson and the main theme of this book is to convince people to think about both the things that are seen and the things that are unseen. In other words, it is to not just look at the superficial aspects of what is being proposed, but to really take a step back and consider all the aspects of what a decision or a course of action might result in. That is not something that the government has done with many of its environmental policies, specifically when it comes to the listing of plastics in one of the schedules of this bill.

Obviously, we want less plastic in our oceans and we want less plastic in our waterways, but we have just come out of a pandemic where plastic was essential in protecting Canadians. Plastic was essential in packaging to keep germs out of everything from utensils to pieces of equipment. Lots of aspects of PPE have plastics in them.

Imagine where we might be in the future if many of the pieces of this legislation are enforced and make it harder to access those types of what we now know to be life-saving materials. We urge the government to take a closer look at that aspect of it.

When we look at plastics around the world and in our oceans, it is Canada that has been leading the way for years to reduce our output of those pieces of material. In fact, 93% of the plastic that ultimately ends up in our oceans comes from just 10 rivers. Ten rivers around the world are responsible for 93% of the plastic in our oceans. How many of those rivers do my colleagues think are in Canada? The answer is zero. The hon. member for Essex got it right. None of those rivers is in Canada. Seven of them are in Asia, including the Yangtze in China, and two are in Africa.

Why is that important? When we take a step back and look at the government's entire environmental policy, we see policies designed to drive production out of Canada, where we have high environmental standards and rules about what can be put in landfills and dumped into rivers. Those policies drive production to other jurisdictions around the world that do not have those measures in place.

The carbon tax is the biggest culprit in that. The carbon tax raises the cost of making things here in Canada, and our competitors around the world, specifically China, which does not have a carbon tax or anywhere near the environmental protection Canada has, go out and bid on contracts to make things. When they do, when those plastics are manufactured in China, in Asia, in developing countries that do not yet have our robust regime around environmental protection, then more things get produced there and more things end up in our oceans.

Liberals might go around and feel like they are doing something for the planet because they brought in a carbon tax and they are banning plastics here in Canada, and the net result of that is more plastic in the ocean. Their policies are actually doing more harm than good. They also do not look at the entire life cycle of alternatives to plastics.

A landmark study was done in 2018 by the Independent Institute, based out of Oakland, and it found that plastic bans can actually have a negative impact on the environment as people substitute other products that have more emissions involved in their life cycle. For example, the difference in manufacturing between a plastic straw and a paper straw is very significant when we look at the amount of energy needed and the amount of CO2 emissions produced.

It takes 39 kilojoules of energy to make one plastic straw. In the entire life cycle of that straw, production, usage and all that, it emits 1.5 grams of CO2. For a paper straw, it takes 96 kilojoules to make it. That is more than double the amount of energy. Because the methods involved in all the aspects of producing that paper straw are more energy intensive, it actually produces 4.1 grams of CO2. A plastic straw produces 1.5 grams and a paper straw 4.1 grams of CO2.

Again, on the one hand the Liberals say they are trying to take action on reducing emissions, and on the other hand they are bringing in policies that actually increase emissions. That is the hallmark of Liberal governments in general. They offer simplistic, sloganistic solutions, and the effects of their policies do more harm than good.

Conservatives are going to be studying this piece of legislation very carefully. We are going to be working very hard at committee to make improvements to the bill on many of the problematic amendments that came from the Senate.

I hope my colleagues across the way will remember one thing. If they truly care about things like reducing emissions, then now is the time for them to abandon their carbon tax. It has been so ineffective. So many Canadians want to see real action on climate change, and the carbon tax is not just making things more expensive; it is actually driving production out from here in Canada. That production then moves overseas and emissions go up.

A molecule of CO2 does not need a passport to travel around the planet. A unit of CO2 that moves away from Canada and doubles because of the lack of protection in countries like China actually results in more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Because the Liberals are so locked in on this failed policy of imposing this new tax on Canadians, they are not taking the meaningful action that they could take. It is called an opportunity cost. They have all the people at the Department of the Environment enforcing this tax and imposing it on provinces that have not adopted it, and because they are using all those human resources and all the government's time and energy on a failed policy that is only resulting in higher emissions, they are not taking other measures that could actually lower emissions.

If they truly care about the environment, now is the time to scrap the carbon tax, especially when we link it to the affordability crisis, because it is not just the carbon tax of today. It is not just that Catherine McKenna was lying when she said that they were not going to increase the carbon tax in 2019. It is that the Liberals are going to triple the carbon tax in the coming months and years. It means that the affordability crisis that is hurting Canadians so much is only to get worse, and the environmental crisis that the Liberals claim they are trying to address will only get worse as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, allow me to pick up on the questions that the member just made reference to.

I can appreciate that when he was the leader, the Conservative Party was against the price on pollution. However, I would remind the member that the leader who followed him actually reversed the Conservative Party position on the price of pollution. In fact every Conservative member of today's Conservative caucus campaigned and knocked on doors saying that they were in favour of a price on pollution, as dictated by the then leader of the Conservative Party. It is only under the new leadership of the current leader that they have flip-flopped once again.

However, Conservatives still made a commitment, a promise to Canadians, that they supported the principles of a price on pollution. Does the member feel any obligation whatsoever to Canadians, given that his party had a platform that supported a price on pollution?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not sure if those are comments or if members are trying to answer the question, but I would ask them to hold off. I know that the hon. House leader for the official opposition is very capable of answering questions or making comments. If I have not recognized you, then you should not be talking.

The hon. official opposition House leader.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is completely mistaken about that. Members of the Conservative Party have always opposed the carbon tax; that has not changed.

I have pointed out to this member in this past that Liberals like to play around with language. They are fond of saying “a price” on pollution. A price is something that the market sets. A price is something that is determined by input costs and supply and demand. The most important thing is that a price is something that we have a choice to pay. If I do not like the price of an apple at one store, I can try to get a better price at a different store, or I can eat pears instead of apples, or I can look for alternatives. I do not have to spend the money.

When the government sets a price, enforces its collection, and there is no choice, that is called a tax. It will always be a tax, and Liberal games with wordplay will not fool Canadians.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

However, I have to say that his comments about plastics were hair-raising. One of his colleagues actually introduced a private member's bill to ban the export of Canadian plastics to places such as the Philippines and India. Of course, our plastics do not end up in the water, but we send them to places that do not have the means to recycle them. I just wanted to point that out.

Would my colleague support the idea of strengthening industry regulations in the context of the bill before us now?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

The member raises a very important issue, and that is the other types of effects of making regulations here in Canada and looking at only one aspect of it. She rightly points out that many regulatory changes over the years have made it harder to process, recycle and break down plastic here in Canada. Because of those rules, which are put in place without thinking about the effects, we have driven a lot of that type of operation to other countries.

In addition to displacing production here, that has also had the effect of moving some of the recycling and other ways to break down that plastic to other countries as well. It is an important issue to raise, not only when we contemplate all the unintended consequences of what may be well-meaning measures here, but looking at the entire aspect of the knock-on effects in other countries as well.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy some of the fantasy speeches I hear in this House, and I thank the member for providing us with one today.

I understand that in 2007, the environment committee studied CEPA, which is probably something very important because it has not been reviewed in over 20 years. We now have a bill before us that would improve it a bit, but we still have a long way to go. We know that the Conservatives wrote a dissenting report sharing concerns about enshrining the right to a healthy environment and consideration of vulnerable populations, which we know is one of the most concerning parts of this bill.

Is the Conservative Party still not interested in enshrining the right to a healthy environment or protecting vulnerable populations who are impacted most heavily?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member must not have been listening to the part of my speech where I was talking about the major achievements of the previous Conservative government when it came to real, tangible and practical improvements to the environment.

Of course, we all believe in protecting vulnerable communities, and there are many very sensitive ecosystems here in Canada. There are also very sensitive ecosystems around the world, which are all linked together. That is why it is so concerning, when we take that step back and look at all the effects of the changes here domestically, when we see it has an increased negative impact on everything from emissions to the amount of plastics that are being thrown out into the garbage and landfills, which end up in rivers and lakes.

As I pointed out, 93% of the plastic in the oceans comes from those 10 rivers, none of which are in Canada. That is why Conservatives are urging the government to do that comprehensive, holistic review to make sure that regulatory and legislative changes here do not actually do more harm than good.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned a lot of accomplishments and things that were done in a positive manner, and also mentioned the shortcomings of the current government.

Can he elaborate on the wastewater treatment standards that were put in place by the previous Conservative government, which he was a part of? The Liberal government, under the former minister of environment, the member for North Vancouver, actually delayed the imposition of those standards decades down the road, which enabled wastewater to continue being dumped into our precious lakes, rivers and oceans here in Canada.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague makes an excellent point. The previous Conservative government raised standards significantly for wastewater treatment, to make sure that the water that is being processed and ultimately released into our ecosystem is only released after strenuous treatment.

Not only did we raise the standards, but we were there to help municipalities raise their standards and make the investments they needed into their wastewater facilities. My hon. colleague is right. We were there as full partners, not just on increasing the standards, but also in being there for municipalities.

I pointed out that it is 2022 and there are still major cities in this country that are dumping raw sewage into our waterways, cities that have budgets worth hundreds of millions of dollars. We really challenge municipalities when they come and object to tougher standards on wastewater. We want to make sure they consider the negative impacts they are having on the environment and that they are taking advantage of the infrastructure funding that previous governments have allocated to help them do just that.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his very entertaining speech. It was a bit of fiction, I would say. My memory of the Harper record is a little different from his. It withdrew from the Kyoto climate accord, did absolutely nothing on climate change for 10 long years and closed the IISD experimental lakes area. Then there was the war on science and muzzling scientists.

Will the hon. member work with us on Bill S-5 to strengthen the bill and work in the spirit that the standing committee did in 2017?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is not that we have a difference of memory. It is that he has not read the black and white ink on the reports showing that his government has a terrible record on emissions. The first thing it did was allow raw sewage to be dumped in the St. Lawrence.

It is not a matter of debate. It is not my opinion versus his opinion. This is from looking through the archives and looking at the actual record.

When it comes to working at committee, I can assure the hon. member that we will approach the committee work in good faith to truly try to improve this bill.

The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, at last we are talking about Bill S-5. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill S‑5 with respect to strengthening environmental protection for a healthy Canada. I want to stress the word “strengthening”. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, has not been updated since 1999. I am therefore speaking for numerous organizations and thousands of people who have been urging the federal government for years to carefully review the act. People have even come to my riding office to talk about it. It is an important job, of course, but it is also a monumental task if we want to do it right and get it all done within a reasonable time frame.

The senators received the bill on February 9, and they finished their study on June 22. It goes without saying that they proposed amendments. They also criticized the speed at which they were expected to work, especially since this is a complex legal issue and this bill has some important technical aspects. Changing one part of an act can sometimes have a ripple effect on other sections. I will get back to this later.

One of these amendments concerns new substances, more specifically, living organisms. Yesterday morning, I asked the representative of Environment and Climate Change Canada questions on this topic during the briefing on Bill S-5. She told me that, following the Senate's amendments, a consultation was planned. However, the required public consultation was not announced to stakeholders and the public until last Thursday. Why did the government wait until mid-October to hold the consultation when it could have done so any time after June 22? The results of the consultation are vital for our committee work.

I would like to point out that it is not enough to revise, modernize and strengthen CEPA. We need to make sure that this bill is only the first of many that will ensure that all aspects of the act are completely reviewed and adjusted in light of the scientific knowledge and the assessment and monitoring technologies we now have at our disposal. These future bills, which should complement this one, should be drafted and tabled as soon as possible. I hope that we will not have to wait another 20 years.

Special attention should definitely be paid to the problem of air pollution and contaminants being released into the environment, which the scientific literature tells us affects the health of women, children and vulnerable individuals, as well as the issue of genetically modified organisms. This one revision is not enough.

However, the good news is that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, have said much the same thing. I think that there is enough time left in this parliamentary session to look at the rest.

I do not have a medical background, but at the risk of repeating myself, although I am certain my colleagues will forgive me, every time I have an opportunity to speak in the House or even to the people in my riding, I always pair the environment with health. These topics are interrelated. I have listened closely to environmental protection organizations such as Nature Canada, Vigilance OGM, Breast Cancer Action Quebec and the Association québécoise des médecins pour l'environnement.

Last March, 54 organizations and more than 200 women concerned about these issues signed a letter to the members of the board of directors studying Bill S‑5, the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Prime Minister. This 13-page letter highlights the long list of health problems associated with certain chemical substances and recommends amendments that would remedy the shortcomings.

Let us look at one example. How many consumers know that Canada's chemical regulatory system is officially based on post-market reporting? Manufacturers do not have to submit a report until after their product has gone on the market. This report is used before the effects have even been evaluated.

In 2022, the scientific and medical literature provided ample proof of the risks associated with cumulative exposure to PFAS and BPA, which can be found everywhere on a daily basis, including in packaging. They are known endocrine disruptors.

Here is a list of health effects: altered estrogen action, breast cancer, altered sperm count and quality, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. As if that were not enough, I could add hormone dysfunction and immunological effects such as decreased vaccine response. I am certain that this is important information. I could also talk about reproductive issues, including decreased fertility.

I will not name them all, because that would take too long. Given that the data provided by Environment and Climate Change Canada in 2018 showed that less than 2% of the regulated industry community was inspected in 2017-18, there is cause for concern. This means that the act is not being enforced as strenuously as it once was. In 2015-16, the Department of the Environment reported that 43 companies had been investigated for violating Canadian law. In 2018-19, that number had dropped to 12. The COVID-19 pandemic still lay ahead.

At the very least, it is unfortunate that it took more than 20 years to revise this important act. That being said, let us look to the future. Let us bring the act robustly into the 21st century and protect it from lobbies and commercial interests. Industry players are often quick to hold up their rights against those allowing for a better application of the law and enhanced monitoring, against the public’s right to be informed and protected from substances that are hazardous to people's health.

Let us look more specifically at Bill S-5. The government made a big thing of the amendment on the right to a healthy environment. We were not fooled, and Canadians should not be either, by the Liberal government’s claim that we have a real right to a healthy environment. This is not the case, according to the senior public servants who presented Bill S-5 to parliamentarians when it was tabled.

Transparency has its merits, so I will say straight out and in good faith that the clauses regarding the right to a healthy environment and those concerning vulnerable populations are in the bill’s preamble. This means that their scope is within the act and that they have no impact on other Canadian laws. What does that mean?

My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, whom I commend, had something to say about this before we returned to our ridings. It means that, even if protection of the right to a healthy environment is added to the government’s mission, that does not create a basic right to live in a healthy environment.

I would like to quote my colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City. In his October 7 speech, he said that the “implementation framework is expected to set a path for a progressive implementation of a right to a healthy environment...and to evolve over time, based on the views of Canadians and the experience gained by the government.”

I think it would be appropriate to clarify what it really means to talk about a right that will evolve over time in a preamble. What does that mean exactly? I hope that it does not mean that we will spend another 20 years finding out.

Fundamental rights are the rights granted to every individual and guaranteed under the rule of law and in a democracy. Fundamental rights include human rights, the rights of citizens and civil liberties. The right to a healthy environment, which can have all sorts of meanings, is not a new idea.

It first started in Switzerland in 1971. Sweden added that right to its constitution in 1974. The primacy of this right has not eroded over time. Over the decades, governments have made considerable efforts to integrate this right in their policies and legislation. We certainly cannot say that Canada is a leader in this regard.

There may have been a time when the issue was given less importance in the political agendas of governments, but our environmental and health problems have surely moved things along. One fact remains: When a right makes its way into a constitution of a state of law, that right becomes a fundamental right. According to the UN, 153 states have legally recognized this right in their constitution. Before anyone says they do not believe me, I will point out that the legislative framework of the states in question and their choice of terminology and implementation do vary.

The few countries where the constitution has no influence over environmental legislation are those that added this right more recently—such as Kenya in 2010, the Dominican Republic in 2010, Jamaica in 2012 and Fiji in 2013—or countries facing civil war or other types of social, economic and political crises. Take the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Africa has the largest number of countries where the constitution appears to have no impact on environmental legislation.

A few weeks before COP26 last year, the UN adopted a resolution making the right to a healthy environment a human right. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights now has a special rapporteur assigned to this issue, because the deterioration of the environment and climate change are recognized as interconnected human rights crises. The aim is to promote a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

Almost at the same time, New York modified its constitution to include the right of everyone to clean air and water and a healthy environment. As in the six U.S. states that took this step before New York did, it was an arduous struggle. Detractors of legal, social and environmental progress always say the sorts of things we will hear here in the House: it is too vague; it is imprecise; anyone can go to court; we need to protect business activity and confidential business information. We will hear these things. Of course, there was also the hon. member for Regina—Qu’Appelle who spoke of the potential litigation a revised act would attract.

I would like to remind members that the OECD confirmed that including environmental provisions in the European constitutions led to an in-depth revision and a marked progression of environmental policy, and facilitated the implementation of inspection, monitoring and enforcement processes.

Sometimes, we need to look to the past in order to have a clearer picture of what is happening now. That is why I wanted to see how this issue was being examined in the Canadian context, in the federal context, which continues to show its limitations.

Several academics have focused on the issue over the years. Some feel that this type of mechanism should be included in Canadian environmental protection legislation. In 1990, the Canadian Bar Association made that recommendation in a document entitled “Sustainable Development in Canada: Options for Law Reform”. More specifically, it recommended that the federal government attempt, through a long-term strategy, to include in the Constitution the right to a healthy environment and, pending interim measures, adopt at least one law recognizing that right. We are far from that today.

The association recommended the adoption of detailed provisions on public participation, as well as provisions to facilitate public access to the civil and criminal courts, to eliminate the limits under common law around legal standing in nuisance cases, to expand access for individuals and environmental groups, and to increase potential remedies in the event of environmental damages.

That was over 30 years ago. I would also like to thank the Library of Parliament who, at the same time, felt it was appropriate and timely to publish a research report on the topic. I encourage my colleagues to read it. This all goes to show that successive governments have had ample time to do the right thing. I hope, therefore, that members will understand my disappointment at the half-hearted mention of the right to a healthy environment in a preamble.

We are not falling for it. I do not think anyone has fallen for it.

As we know, every level of government can pass laws to protect the environment if those laws are related to an area of constitutional jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867, a concurrent jurisdiction. In 2006, Quebec amended chapter IV of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. It reads, “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.” Unlike the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Quebec charter, in the political context of Quebec, is quasi-constitutional in scope. It is plain to see that Quebec does not need Canada's help in promoting and protecting the fundamental rights of Quebeckers.

I know full well that the federal government has not developed the humility needed to recognize the political merit of what I just mentioned, or the humility to learn from the progressive public policies implemented around the world, even though it sees itself as a leader in all things relating to the environment. Why not have the ambition to give serious meaning and scope to this provision that it plans to include in the preamble?

Since 2006, the amendment to chapter IV of the Quebec charter not only enshrines a fundamental individual right, but also puts forward a normative principle on which the courts can rely to give an environmental dimension to other fundamental rights set out in the charter, including the right to life, personal security, freedom, private life, property and equality. That is where we are, at least in Quebec.

What is before us, with all the fanfare and under the banner of the right to a healthy environment, is not even the bare minimum. The bare minimum would be to include it in the body of the act.

As I pointed out earlier, the addition of this right is not in the act and its preamble. It therefore has no impact whatsoever on other federal legislation, not to mention that its implementation framework is still very uncertain as to the strictness and scope of its application, in light of the CEPA provisions.

If the government were serious about creating a new right, if it were truly a partner with states of law and progressive democracies, if it were aiming for transparency, if it had confidence in the application of its law, and if it had political courage, it would propose a round of negotiations to truly enshrine it in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Otherwise, this provision kept in the preamble will change nothing.

On April 13, 2022, partners from all political parties represented in Quebec’s National Assembly adopted a motion affirming the primacy of Quebec’s jurisdiction over the environment. Elected representatives in Quebec unanimously oppose any federal intervention in environmental matters in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position.

The Bloc Québécois wants to work with all partners to ensure that the amended act best reflects the recommendations from health protection, environmental protection and industry groups and stakeholders from various industries, without losing sight of the fundamental role of this law and the following priorities: improving transparency on mandatory labelling; improving enforcement of the regulations and ensuring stricter requirements for the assessment of products by the importers; addressing disproportionate exposures and the impacts of toxic chemicals on health, while specifying the effects on vulnerable communities; improving the collection of biomonitoring data to better understand and treat exposure in those communities; establishing clear timelines for the assessment of substances and taking measures for processing substances deemed to be toxic. These elements merit careful consideration by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I would really like to do a truly collaborative study, a study that would prioritize the participation of experts, those who know this and not a parade of various lobbies.

Finally, as the saying goes, if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well. It would be unfortunate, even irresponsible, to move quickly. Doing so would compromise the quality and depth of the work to be done. Let us be serious but let us not waste too much time. I will ensure that there are no sections or provisions that can be considered as intrusions in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I will work collegially to ensure that the revised act is truly strengthened and that it allows the federal government to better protect health and the environment while ensuring, without compromise, respect for Quebec's environmental sovereignty.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her thoughtful remarks and her good work on the environment committee. The hon. member will remember that CEPA reform was first introduced as Bill C-28 in this House in the last session and is Bill S-5 in this session.

I wonder if the hon. member can reflect on whether the Senate strengthened Bill S-5 and improved it. Will she support getting it to committee quickly so we can thoroughly discuss the issues she has raised on the floor today?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is also a member of the committee, for the question.

I think that the Senate did rather good work and introduced new ideas. It made important amendments. Earlier, I was talking about the amendment regarding living organisms. I completely agree with referring this bill to committee as soon as possible for a thorough and detailed study so that it may be sent back to the House quickly, by the end of spring or by summer, I hope.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Repentigny could expand on how we can improve this bill, especially around the right to live in a healthy environment and around how we have to not only strengthen the rights of Canadians to live in a healthy environment, but uphold those rights through individual powers to ask the government for remedies when those rights are violated.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it truly works best when it is integrated into charters of rights. That is the best approach. Of course it requires a great deal of courage from the federal government to open constitutional talks.

In 1990, the Canadian Bar Association proposed enshrining this in a charter, but it also said that we could have interim legislation. That is where the door could open slightly. On October 7, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands said that there were obstacles to clause 22. I admit that I have not had the time to look at that, but I think there are ways around this.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague from Repentigny for exposing this bill's shortcomings in relation to the real right to a healthy environment. A real right is never weighed against other factors. A right is a right. Is there anything she would like to add about that?

How does she think that concern should be addressed?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, my colleague is again referring to the right to a healthy environment. His question is very similar to the question from our other NDP colleague, so I will offer the same answer.

Bill S‑5 contains some interesting amendments from the Senate. As a political party, however, we would like to make other amendments on transparency, disclosure on mandatory labelling and strict product assessment requirements. A number of other amendments could be made. The title of the bill includes the word “strengthening”. We have some ideas about how to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and analysis of the bill. I entirely agree with her when she says that the issue of the environment and that of health are closely linked. They are intricately linked. We could take a holistic approach to these issues.

I have a two-part question. What does industry think of this bill? Has public health ever given an opinion, are they closely monitoring the issue and would they be a good expert to consult?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam speaker, since my colleague was a nurse in another life, I understand why she also sees the link between the environment and health.

I have had Zoom meetings with industry people who all agree on the first part of the bill tabled by the government. However, they are not so sure about the Senate amendments. In our opinion, the Senate amendments really strengthen the law.

I will now put on my other hat, that of the union president I was in my former life. I am suspicious when industry says they agree with what is coming. It makes me think that we are not going far enough and that the measure needs to be strengthened. Let me give an example. Automobile manufacturers were uncompromising for 75 years in their response to the challenges of science. They were against seat belts; they were against anything that could improve vehicle safety. They lobbied strongly, but governments, elected officials, stood firm to impose safety equipment because that is what people needed.

I think it is the same thing now for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Let us strengthen it and stand firm in the face of lobbying to achieve something. This is about our health.

Speaking of health, the Association québécoise des médecins pour l'environnement, a branch of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, has provided some very interesting opinions on the subject.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my dear colleague from Repentigny, especially for her remarks about my efforts in this place. We agree that Bill S-5 needs a lot of improvement.

I want to ask a question about—

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it about interpretation?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Yes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it working now?

Perhaps the hon. member could unplug and then plug in her mike again.

It always helps if it is plugged in.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are all human. That is not a problem.

I want to ask my friend a question. What does she think of the Senate's amendments that eliminate the issue of balance, balancing with other factors?

In Bill S-5, with the Senate amendments, there is not a real right to protect the environment. What is her response?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is absolutely right. As I said, and as we have talked about at length, it is all smoke and mirrors. No one is fooled by this.

We know that this does not make any meaningful changes in terms of rights. It is really just a pseudo-right, as indicated in the preamble of the act, and it does not affect other acts of Parliament or federal laws. Yes, the senators explored this. They criticized the fact that it was not a true right, that it was a pseudo-right. We want to work on that in order to integrate it into the body of the act, as a bare minimum.

I know my colleague has been working on this bill for years. I look forward to working collaboratively with her.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is really important that we are talking about a bill that is about dealing with the central crisis of our time, which is climate. I would ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about a government that has made promise after promise to create a clean-energy economy but has missed every single climate target it has set.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I will be very brief. We often hear that it is important to walk the talk.

In the case of the federal government, the Government of Canada, it is definitely not walking the talk.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, with that, I would like to split my time with the wonderful member for Victoria.

It is a real honour to rise here this afternoon to speak to Bill S-5, the government's new environmental protection act. I am happy to say that I will be supporting the bill at second reading with the hopes that it can be substantially strengthened at committee.

The bill has come to us from the other place, and the Senate has made some important amendments to the initial government bill it considered. I am pleased to hear words from the government side that suggest it will be supporting those amendments.

This is an important bill, as it would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA as it is known, which was enacted in 1999, 23 years ago. This act is largely concerned with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are a lot of discussions happening, which is overshadowing the member's speech. I would ask members, if they want to have discussions, to take them out into the lobby.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, this act is largely concerned with protecting the environment and human health from toxins and maintaining air and water quality, but there is widespread agreement that CEPA is overdue for a substantial improvement. For one thing, it is widely considered to be unenforceable as it now stands, as there are multiple obstacles to enforcing it and remedies cannot be used.

A lot has happened in 23 years. New chemicals have been invented that potentially impact our health, and the public has been increasingly concerned about the health of our environment and the impact of it on our health and on the populations of animals and plants that we share the world with and depend on for our well-being. A poll in 2017 found that nine in 10 Canadians are concerned about exposure to toxins from consumer products, 96% agreed that labels should disclose the presence of those toxins in consumer products and 92% agreed that Canada should recognize the right to live in a healthy environment.

I would like to concentrate my remarks today on that final point: the right to live in a healthy environment. There are 159 countries around the world with legal obligations to protect the human right to a healthy environment, but Canada does not have those legal obligations. There are environmental bills of rights in Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but there is no federal law that explicitly recognizes the right to live in a healthy environment in Canada.

International efforts to recognize that right go back to the 1972 Stockholm declaration, which recognizes the right to “an environment of equality that permits a life of dignity and well-being”. Fifty years later, this past summer, on July 28, the UN General Assembly passed a unanimous resolution that recognized the right to a healthy environment around the world. With Canada voting for that resolution to finally join the rest of the world and with the 92% of Canadians agreeing with it, it is certainly high time that we had federal legislation that recognized this right. I am happy to say that Bill S-5 provides a step in that direction.

The preamble of CEPA will now include the following statement: “Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under this Act”. That is a good step, but there are limitations to that statement. For one, as the member for Repentigny mentioned, it is in the preamble where it does not really carry much legal weight. Also, the right is clearly restricted to the provisions of the act. In other words, it is around the control of toxins, air quality and water quality.

This new act would also state that those rights are “subject to any reasonable limits” and that those limits will be elaborated on in the implementation framework through “the consideration of relevant factors, including social, health, scientific and economic factors”. It is therefore important to see how these rights will be upheld. The implementation framework of this bill will apparently also elaborate on mechanisms to support that right.

While Bill S-5 seems to be a step forward in recognizing the right to live in a healthy environment, there are serious concerns that the right will not be backed up by measures that improve the enforceability of the act. In fact, the Senate committee studying the bill reported:

This committee would like to state their concern that the right to a healthy environment cannot be protected unless it is made truly enforceable. This enforceability would come by removing the barriers that exist to the current remedy authority within Section 22 of CEPA, entitled “Environmental Protection Action.” There is concern that Section 22 of CEPA contains too many procedural barriers and technical requirements that must be met to be of practical use. As Bill S-5 does not propose the removal or re-evaluation of these barriers, this Committee is concerned that the right to a healthy environment may remain unenforceable.

In discussions that I have had with top environmental lawyers about Bill S-5, I have heard more concerns that the implementation framework proposed in this bill would interpose the government between public rights and the remedies needed when those rights are violated.

My first suggestion would be that the bill be strengthened by giving the residents of Canada more power to ensure that their right to live in a healthy environment is upheld. That is one of the things that my private member's bill, Bill C-219, would do.

Bill C-219 is entitled the Canadian environmental bill of rights and will be debated later in this session. I would like to spend some time covering its provisions, because it suggests several ways Bill S-5 could and should be improved. I would like to mention here that Bill C-219 was drafted by my former colleague Linda Duncan, a brilliant environmental lawyer who was the MP for Edmonton Strathcona for many years. She introduced this same private member's bill four times during her career as an MP. It was never voted down but, unfortunately, died in each of those parliaments before becoming law.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the limitations of the right to a healthy environment proposed by Bill S-5 is that it is restricted to the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It does not cover environmental protections outlined in other parts of the federal environmental mandate, such as the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and so on. Bill C-219 would provide umbrella coverage to all federal legislation outside of CEPA. CEPA was carved out of Bill C-219, apparently to avoid clashing legislation.

On top of that wider coverage, Bill C-219 would provide stronger protections of the right to a healthy environment. Specifically, it would give residents of Canada the right to, among other things, access information about environmental concerns, standing at hearings, access tribunals and courts to uphold environmental rights, and request a review of laws. It would also provide protection to whistle-blowers.

To conclude, I reiterate that I will be supporting Bill S-5 at second reading, but I hope the government will look carefully at my bill to see how it might inform efforts to improve Bill S-5 in committee amendments. I also hope that if the government is serious about extending the right to live in a healthy environment to all Canadians, that it will support my bill, the Canadian environmental bill of rights, to extend and strengthen that right to the entire federal mandate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have five minutes of questions and comments after question period.

The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, every day, Canadians are exposed to chemicals from polluting industries that spew harmful chemicals into the air we breathe and into the waters of our lakes, our rivers and our oceans. At home, we also experience this in the products we use.

Canadians expect their government to take action to protect them and their families from these toxic substances. They expect their government to ensure that all people have the right to live in a healthy environment. However, Canada's main environmental law to prevent pollution and regulate toxic chemicals is decades out of date. While over 150 other countries already have legal obligations to protect the right to a healthy environment, Canada does not.

These are things New Democrats have been calling on the government to fix for years. While we are glad to see this bill finally come forward, there are some critical and troubling weaknesses and loopholes in the bill.

In the two decades since the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was last updated, the number of chemicals that people in Canada are exposed to in their daily lives has grown exponentially. There has been a 50-fold increase in the production of chemicals since 1950 and this is expected to triple again by 2050. Personal care products are manufactured with over 10,000 unique chemical ingredients, some of which are either suspected or known to cause cancer, harm our reproductive systems or disrupt our endocrine systems.

Over the last 22 years, we have also learned much more about the harmful cumulative effects of these toxic chemicals on our health. Nine out of 10 Canadians have hormone-disrupting chemicals used in consumer products in their blood and urine. We now know that exposure to hazardous chemicals, even in small amounts, can be linked to chronic illnesses like asthma, cancer and diabetes. According to Health Canada, air pollution is a factor in over 15,000 premature deaths and millions of respiratory issues every year in Canada.

This is also an issue of environmental justice.

Frontline workers, who are predominantly women and racialized people, often have higher exposure to hazardous chemicals. We know that, across Canada, indigenous, Black and racialized people are disproportionately impacted by toxic dumps, polluting pipelines, tainted drinking water and other environmental hazards. The former UN special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes has stated, “The invisible violence inflicted by toxics is an insidious burden disproportionately borne by indigenous peoples in Canada.”

This is why this bill is so important. Without modernizing legislation to update chemicals management in Canada, and without the legal recognition of the right to a healthy environment, Canadians will continue to be exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals.

The NDP has a long history of advocating for environmental rights and enshrining the right to a healthy environment in law. My colleague, the MP for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, has a private member's bill on enshrining the right to a healthy environment in an environmental bill of rights. For years, New Democrats have introduced legislation on the right to a healthy environment.

The MP for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has been urging the government to amend Bill S-5 to incorporate the stronger language in his private member's bill. However, the government has not even committed to whether they will accept all of the amendments that the Senate put forward.

While it is good to see the government finally taking steps in this direction, it is important to note that adding the right to a healthy environment in a limited way under CEPA is not the same thing as ensuring that, broadly, all people have the right to live in a healthy environment. There remain troubling limitations on how the right to a healthy environment will be applied and how the right will be enforced.

While the Senate has made several positive amendments to improve the bill, including removing language stating that the right to a healthy environment should be balanced with economic factors, they have also left us with outstanding concerns about the enforcement of that right that they were not able to address.

One of the most disappointing and concerning gaps is that the bill does not touch on the citizen enforcement mechanism in CEPA. The citizen enforcement mechanism is, frankly, broken. It has never been successfully used. The process is so onerous that it is essentially impossible for a citizen to bring an environmental enforcement action. Without a functioning citizen enforcement mechanism, there are serious questions about how the right to a healthy environment can be truly enforced.

Because the government decided not to fix the enforcement of CEPA in the bill, it will be out of scope for amendments. This is a huge gap, but there are also other critical gaps in the bill. It lacks clear accountability and timelines for how toxic substances are managed. It lacks mandatory labelling so Canadians can make informed choices about the products they use. It would not fix loopholes that allow corporations to hide which toxic substances are in their products.

If we want to protect the environment and our health, we have to ensure that we are following the advice of scientists and experts, not the interests of big corporations. These big corporations, made up of some of Canada's biggest polluting industries, have been attempting to stop amendments to Bill S-5, amendments that would strengthen the bill. They are lobbying against better protection for people and for communities. These groups wrote to the Senate, urging the Speaker “to reverse the amendments introduced by the Committee and pass Bill S-5 as it was originally introduced.”

These corporations do not want to be accountable for their toxic pollution. They do not want the right to a healthy environment to be enforceable. They would prefer the bill the Liberals originally put forward. They would prefer a bill with enough loopholes to keep profits and pollution high, but people fundamentally have the right to live in a healthy environment. It is why New Democrats are fighting to amend and fix these loopholes.

In addition to pushing the government to fix the bill, we have also been pushing for an office of environmental justice. The United States already has an office of environmental justice as part of its Environmental Protection Agency, and it has had it since 1992. If we established such an office in Canada, it could not only help coordinate the national strategy on environmental racism, improving our understanding of the burden of preventable environmental health hazards faced by indigenous, Black and racialized communities, but also help us assess possible interventions to address these hazards and ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to enjoy the same level of environmental protection.

Environment and Climate Change Canada is going to need more resources and capacity if the government is truly committed to addressing environmental inequities and upholding the right to a healthy environment. An office of environmental justice could provide structure and additional capacity to carry out this important work.

I find the failure to address enforcement in Bill S-5 the most troubling loophole, but I want to mention a few other gaps in the bill. It does not include legally binding and enforceable air quality standards. It would fail to establish a more open, inclusive and transparent risk assessment process for the evaluation of genetically modified organisms. These are critically important areas the government has chosen not to address, and since the government did not open up these sections, like the section on enforcement, they are areas the government has deemed out of the scope of the bill, so it is not open to fixing them with amendments. This is incredibly troubling.

It has been over 20 years since CEPA was last updated. The environment committee studied this issue and made recommendations on how to fix it five years ago. We have been waiting for this bill, waiting for years, so why have the Liberals left so many gaps, loopholes and issues that still need to be fixed?

Canadians cannot wait another two decades while they continue to be exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals, while the environment is polluted, and while human health is threatened. We need to protect Canadians now. My New Democrat colleagues and I will continue to push the government to improve the bill, and we will not stop fighting for the right to a healthy environment, a truly enforceable right that ensures that all Canadians can enjoy safe products and a healthy environment for generations to come.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think there are many aspects of the legislation that really would improve our environment going forward. One of the things I think is quite interesting is the whole issue of labelling of toxic products. That is something that, from what I understand, is being expanded upon, and I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the importance of labelling. From a personal perspective, I believe it is something that is really quite encouraging, and I hope to hear more feedback on that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the premise of the question, that labelling is incredibly important. Having Canadians know what is in the products they are using is vital if we want to protect human health. Unfortunately this bill would take a small step, but would not close the loopholes that allow industries to hide some of the things they are putting in the products we use. Yes, I want the government to move in this direction, but I hope it will be open to amending the bill and strengthening it, so that Canadians can truly be protected.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. I enjoyed working on the environment committee with her.

One thing she talked about in her speech is that there were consultations for five years on this bill, so it has already taken five years, but with respect to the right to a healthy environment, the government is now saying it is going to take two more years to determine what the right to a healthy environment means.

I find that incredibly troubling, that it is dragging its feet so long on this. I wonder if the member shares those concerns or would like to comment on that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and I also enjoyed working on the environment committee with him.

Yes, the delay is extremely troubling. It has been 20 years since the last time the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was updated, and it has been five years since we received recommendations from the environment committee. To now have a longer timeline is unacceptable.

What is truly unacceptable, though, is to put forward a right to a healthy environment that cannot be enforced. That is what the government has done. What we want is to protect Canadians, the ecosystems, the environment, the air, the land and the water. This is vitally important, and we need to do it right.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always so grateful to hear my hon. colleague speak. I learned so much just from the last few minutes in the House.

She pointed out the weaknesses and flaws within this piece of legislation, but she also mentioned another piece of legislation that our colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, has put forward. I wonder if she could talk about the strengths of that bill compared to the weaknesses in this one.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question, for her work and for the motions she has put forward to protect watersheds and fresh water around Canada.

I really appreciate her bringing up the motion that the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has put forward, because it is an environmental rights bill. To just put it in the preamble of this update to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is not the same thing. To talk about the right to a healthy environment is not the same thing as having a broad approach to making sure that across government this right is being protected. It is also not the same thing as ensuring that the mechanisms we have to enforce that right, to protect Canadians, are in place.

I hope the government will look at the bill presented by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, but I also hope it will reconsider and open up the section on citizen enforcement, so that we can protect Canadians and the right to a healthy environment.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is such a passionate advocate for the environment, especially now that she is a mom and looking forward to the future generations.

Of particular interest in New Brunswick is the issue around the aerial spraying of herbicides and pesticides. I wonder if she would care to comment on that specifically.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question and also for her work on this issue. I know she has put forward motions to address this.

It is a concern also in British Columbia, so it absolutely is something that needs to be addressed. We need to take strong action to ensure companies are not putting toxic chemicals into our environment that then enter our bodies. If we are thinking about our children and future generations, this is critically important to address.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. Before I get into the substance of Bill S‑5, I would like to share a brief history of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and before I do that, I want to talk about the harmful effects of pollution on human health and emphasize how crucial it is to keep enforcing tough regulations to minimize pollution.

In 2017, The Lancet commission on pollution and health concluded that pollution is the greatest environmental risk factor for disease and premature death worldwide. An update to the original report published in 2017 was recently released. It finds that pollution is still responsible for a staggering nine million premature deaths per year, which is one in six deaths worldwide. These nine million pollution-related deaths each year are nearly 50% higher than all deaths worldwide attributable to COVID‑19 to date. They are also higher than all deaths in 2019 attributable to war, terrorism, AIDS, TB, malaria, and drug and alcohol use combined. Air pollution is the largest contributor to pollution-related deaths, accounting for 6.67 million total deaths.

I would like to go back to the Constitution of 1867 and remind everyone that there is no reference to the environment in terms of the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. I would presume that if the fathers of Confederation were here with us and we used the term “environment”, a question mark would appear over each of their heads. Of course the Constitution talks about forests and fisheries, but purely from the perspective of resource development, not from the perspective of resource protection.

The division of powers in environmental matters is not a static thing. It is a result of court rulings or the product of case law. That case law does not grant sole responsibility to any one level of government. In other words, the environment is a shared jurisdiction.

At this point, I would like to talk about the well-known Hydro-Québec case, when the Supreme Court decided that the federal government did indeed have the right to legislate on the regulation of toxic substances under criminal law. In this case, Hydro-Québec, a Crown corporation, was charged with dumping polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, into the Saint-Maurice River in the early 1990s under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In its arguments, the Crown corporation stated that the regulation of toxic substances did not fall under criminal law and that the federal government was using criminal law as a pretext, or colourable device, to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. In a rather close five to four decision, Justices La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin said, and I quote:

The protection of the environment, through prohibitions against toxic substances, constitutes a wholly legitimate public objective in the exercise of the criminal law power.... The legitimate use of the criminal law in no way constitutes an encroachment on provincial legislative power, though it may affect matters falling within the latter's ambit.... The use of the federal criminal law power in no way precludes the provinces from exercising their extensive powers under s. 92 to regulate and control the pollution of the environment either independently or in co-operation with federal action.

In other words, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a cornerstone that is rooted in our criminal law. It is serious business. Anyone who says that the act is not robust or strong is minimizing the powers enshrined in the act.

What does Bill S-5 do? No doubt it has been mentioned in other speeches, but it does the following: It recognizes the right to a healthy environment. This is something that many constituents have written to me about. They are asking for this bill to incorporate it. It also confirms the government's commitment to implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The bill recognizes the importance of minimizing the risk to vulnerable populations, namely children and those who live in high pollution areas. Very importantly, it requires that cumulative effects, that is, how chemicals interact with each other, be considered in substance risk assessments. That is not nothing; this is something that is value-added to this legislation.

Of concern also to many of my constituents, the bill seeks to reduce the use of animals in testing the safety of products. Also, Canadians would be able to request that specific substances be assessed outside the government's particular assessment priorities. There is a role for citizens in this bill and that is in regard to the role and right to request that specific substances be assessed.

Let us go back a bit in the history of CEPA. Let us go back to 1999. The first update to CEPA was in 1999. I remember that very well because I was working on the Hill as a political staffer and the MP I worked for was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment. There were lengthy consultations with stakeholders on how to amend the bill. The committee hearings were quite extensive and involved.

CEPA, 1999 incorporated for the first time the precautionary principle, which, again, is not nothing. The precautionary principles states:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

I remember there was a lot of debate around that definition of the precautionary principle. No doubt many people would like to see the definition perhaps be a little stronger and maybe not mention the term “cost-effective” as in cost-effective measures. Nonetheless, it is there in the bill.

Also in CEPA, 1999, there was a focus away from managing pollution after it had been created, to preventing pollution in the first place. CEPA, 1999 also included provisions for regulating vehicle emissions which, as we know, the government uses in the battle against climate change.

Finally, CEPA, 1999 established a new, more rigorous and timely approach to assessing whether a substance is or may be considered toxic to the environment or to human health. In the act, toxic is defined as having “an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity” constituting or possibly constituting “a danger to the environment on which life depends” or constituting or possibly constituting a danger “to human life or health”.

Bill S-5, as I understand it, would inject more rigour into the process. Here I quote:

The new regime will retain the risk-based approach in the current Act. For substances assessed as meeting the criteria to be considered toxic under CEPA, the amendments would then require that the Ministers give priority to prohibiting activities in relation to said toxic substances of the highest risk. The criteria for substances of the highest risk would be set out in regulations, and would include persistence and bioaccumulation as well as criteria for such things as carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive toxicity. These regulations will be developed in consultation with stakeholders.

We are talking about a bill, and this is a complex area. Clearly, regulations will be required. One cannot put everything in the bill. Much of the detail will have to be contained in regulations.

Another interesting fact about Bill S-5 is that the bill, if it is passed and I assume it will be, would require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to publish and maintain a watch-list. This is something new. By watch-list, we mean a list of substances that have been determined to be capable of becoming toxic under CEPA. We are not just talking about substances that are determined to be toxic, but those that could be determined, after study, to become toxic, if, for example, exposure is increased. The watch-list would help importers, manufacturers and Canadian consumers to select safer alternatives and avoid regrettable substitutions.

Another interesting fact about CEPA, which I do not think has really been talked about too much is that CEPA is relevant in the context of the fight against climate change. When we talk about the measures to battle greenhouse gas emissions, we refer a lot to the price on carbon, the price on pollution, but we do not really focus on CEPA.

I was elected and already sitting in the House in 2005, and I remember that the government of Paul Martin added greenhouse gas emissions to CEPA, 1999, namely those emissions from large industrial emitters, citing the “worldwide scientific consensus that there is sufficient and compelling evidence to conclude that greenhouse gases constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.”

This was almost 20 years ago. Even back then the Liberal government had the foresight to understand that climate change was a real and growing problem and made amendments to CEPA, 1999 to give itself the leverage, the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. I do not recall the Conservatives being thrilled with this change at the time, although today they happily preach the regulatory route to supporting clean technologies as the preferred alternative to putting a price on carbon.

It has been mentioned and talked about even today in this debate that one of the major steps forward through Bill S-5 is the introduction of the right to a healthy environment. I will read the new section 5.1(1) of Bill S-5, which says:

For the purposes of paragraph 2(1)‍(a.‍2), the Ministers shall, within two years after the day on which this section comes into force, develop an implementation framework to set out how the right to a healthy environment will be considered in the administration of this Act.

I will come back to this in a moment.

There is another very important aspect of Bill S-5 which should not be minimized. It has been mentioned; the member for Victoria touched on it. The bill seeks to minimize risks to the health of vulnerable populations. By vulnerable population, we mean “a group of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances.”

Those with greater susceptibility may include, for example, children and those in poor health. Those with greater exposure may include workers and those living in areas where levels of pollution are particularly high.

In addition, the new law would require that the government conduct research and studies, including biomonitoring surveys specifically in relation to the role of substances in illnesses or in health problems which may relate to vulnerable populations.

This is where Bill S-5 intersects with Bill C-226, which in this Parliament is being sponsored by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, but was first introduced by the member for Cumberland—Colchester in the last Parliament. It has been referred to as the bill on environmental racism.

Bill C-226 is identical, except for a couple of grammatical changes and some wording, to the bill that came out of the environment committee before the last election. This bill goes a bit further than Bill S-5 in being very proactive and prescriptive in engaging with vulnerable populations on the risks they face.

For example, Bill C-226 requires the minister to develop a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to advance environmental justice, and to assess, prevent and address environmental racism.

The bill requires that this strategy include a study that includes an examination of the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk, information and statistics relating to the location of environmental hazards. It must include measures that can be taken to advance environmental justice and assess, prevent and address environmental racism and that may include possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs, the involvement of community groups in environmental decision-making, and lastly, the collection of information and statistics relating to health outcomes in communities located in proximity to environmental hazards.

In an effort to leverage the new right to a healthy environment and the protection of vulnerable populations, it has been suggested that Bill S-5 be amended to require that the minister specify what actions the government will take when ever a substance for which an ambient air quality standard has been established, when the average ambient concentration of such a substance in a geographic area exceeds the standard.

I think this is very important. I think it was alluded to by the member for Victoria. Going back to the beginning of my speech, this is where pollution really impacts human health. It is often through air pollution. Many are calling for an amendment to the bill that would require the government to develop actions whenever it is determined that the ambient air quality in a particular area is above standard.

I understand there are some federal and provincial jurisdictional issues around doing this, but I hope it is something that the committee will explore with expert witnesses and perhaps an amendment will be introduced to this effect.

This connects to another issue that I received a lot of mail about in the last few years. The bill seeks to reduce reliance on animal testing. I have many constituents who have written to me in relation to animal testing for cosmetic product development. They have written to me saying that we have to stop this. In fact, the bill opens the door to minimizing the use of animal testing. The Senate made some amendments to make that part of the bill even stronger.

I have met with stakeholders, particularly animal rights groups like the Animal Justice Canada, Humane Canada and the Humane Society International/Canada. They have recommended strengthening this part of the bill even more. The Senate amendment talks about refining the use of animal testing, but that leaves the door open a little too wide according to those I have met with.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting listening to the member's speech.

Right now, we are in a situation where the government cannot really seem to get much done. People cannot get a passport or a NEXUS card. People cannot immigrate to Canada. People trying to renew their work permit cannot get that done either.

The bill says that any person can ask for a substance to be assessed. Given the state of the government as it stands now, and it cannot even get passports done, could the member please explain to me how the Liberals think the government is going to be able to assess every chemical that any person in the country decides needs to be assessed?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. I would assume that there would have to be some kind of triaging system. One could ask the government to assess a substance that is totally harmless, so I think there would have to be some funnelling.

However, the government has been assessing chemicals for a long time. This bill goes back to 1988, and I believe we have a lot of expertise in the government on the assessment of toxic substances. I have faith that the government will be able to act on this particular provision, but it is a point that I look forward to discussing. It is a good question and, in fact, I would like to see that question addressed to government departmental officials.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I do have a question for him about the principle that is included in the bill, specifically with respect to creating a healthy environment for all Canadians.

If that is the government's intention, why not talk to its Canadian partners about including this principle in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member. I had the pleasure of listening to one of her speeches during a Conservative Party opposition day. She delivered a magnificent speech on pricing pollution.

Honestly, I would rather that we not open the Canadian Constitution. The member may want to see the Constitution reopened and constitutional discussions, but I remember constitutional discussions and I would like to stay away from that sort of idea.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his work chairing the environment committee. It is a pleasure working with him.

The member spoke about receiving lots of correspondence about the right to a healthy environment. The first people who came to me about the right to a healthy environment were Franny and Rupert. They started advocating for this in 2014 when they were seven and 10 years old. Now, eight years later, they are still incredible environmental advocates, and they want to see a strong right to a healthy environment.

One of the ways the government could do that is to open up the section on enforcement and ensure that there is a strong citizen endorsement policy, and one that is not broken the way the current one is. I am curious about the member's thoughts on ensuring that the right to a healthy environment can be enforced.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her ongoing focus on enforcement. As some members of the House may know, the member had the environment committee study enforcement.

I agree that enforcement is really the name of the game. It is an issue that is more general than related to the right to a healthy environment. I believe that the right to a healthy environment is incorporated in many pieces of environmental legislation. However, we must remember that the right to a healthy environment is not a constitutional right but a right within a law that can be changed depending on the government.

The right to a healthy environment exists through the Impact Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act and through legislative instruments the government has to protect the environment. That right is pervasive, and enforcement should always be a focus of the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide some thoughts on the importance of reconciliation.

In the legislation, from what I understand, there is consideration being given to the UNDRIP, which is an important aspect of the legislation. The member might want to provide some thoughts on that or just speak generally to reconciliation and how the government needs to continue its efforts in dealing with the environment on the issue of reconciliation.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have seen the evolution of discourse in the House and in legislation. It is nice, heartening and encouraging to see references to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an increasing number of pieces of legislation. Again, that speaks to the way the notion is permeating our political culture.

Yes, I am very encouraged by that, but the bill's focus is also on vulnerable populations. If we were to marry it up to Bill C-226, it would take reconciliation a few steps forward because these measures recognize that there are populations, many of them indigenous, that have suffered disproportionately from the impacts of industrialization and pollution. This bill recognizes that fact and points us in the right direction.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite about this right to a clean environment. Most of the rights that we have in Canada are what are deemed to be negative rights, to be free from something. This is more of a positive right.

How do you see that working out over time as the government has not really fleshed this out and will leave it to regulation? What is your thinking on where this is going to go?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members to address questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, by requiring the government create a framework for defining and implementing the right to a healthy environment, the bill opens the conversation with stakeholders. Through the discussions, I think we will see that idea become more tangible and concrete, and one can no longer close the door on this idea. It is out there, and it will continue to inform policy, legislation and regulations.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, in the member's answer, he mentioned that this opens the door to having discussions with stakeholders. Would it not have been more wise to have, or did the government have, significant conversations with stakeholders before bringing this bill forward?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the discussion on the right to a healthy environment has been taking place for quite a while now. There have been debates about it in the House. However, a formal process of consultation injects rigour into the process and will lead to some tangible recommendations. That is where the difference is.

We are focusing the discussion now. We are funnelling the discussion, and that will move us forward on the issue.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the debate we are having on this Senate bill, which I do think is important. However, there is a great deal of impatience in my riding with us talking about frameworks and rights when my community has just gone through the 90 driest days in the history of the community. We are facing wildfires and smoke. Yes, let us set frameworks and strategies, but let us also get busy working on the changes we need in creating jobs in renewable energy. We need good, family-supporting jobs.

There is, as I said, increasing impatience when we talk in the House about frameworks and the right to a healthy environment, but we are not actually getting down to the hard work of making the changes we need.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is touching on a bit of a separate issue. He is talking about the need for transitioning workers from fossil fuels to cleaner energies and those kinds of things.

On the fight against climate change, the government's plan, which it has been implementing and is starting to show results, is extremely comprehensive and detailed. Unfortunately, that level of detail does not make it into news headlines, but the government is doing a tremendous amount.

I understand the impatience, but it is important for citizens to maybe do some of the research, to look into what the government is actually doing at the federal level, what other governments are doing at the provincial level and what industry is doing as well.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak to Bill S-5. This is a bill coming out of the Senate, but it is a government bill nonetheless, and it contains some amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I would like to talk a little about the history of environmental protection and some of the good work governments have done over the years in environmental protection. Members may know that I am an auto mechanic by trade, and from that I learned that the government has put its fingers in the mix of what it means to build an automobile, both in emissions regulations and safety. I would like to talk a bit today about how, over the years, there have been changes to automobiles that have led to improvements in our environment.

Long before I was born, there was a thing called the hole in the ozone layer, and that was deemed to have been caused by things called chlorofluorocarbons, which were used in air conditioning systems. Before I was born, governments from around the world worked on that to say that we needed to stop using this product and find a different product.

Air conditioning systems of older cars are filled up with a product called R-12. Sometime in the eighties, or it might actually be in the nineties, we switched over to a product called R-134a. Ozone is a particular product in the air way up in the atmosphere. Over a generation, the hole in the ozone layer down by the South Pole was monitored. We watched that slowly close over time. That was deemed to be because of actions governments took. Governments from around the world worked together to ensure this product would not be used as much, and definitely not in the automotive sector.

We have seen vehicles be converted. If one's air conditioning leaked out, one could not buy R-12 anymore and had to convert it to R-134a. When I became an auto mechanic, I was taught on how to switch them over, and also what R-134a was.

More recently, we have gone from R-134a and moved into the new R-1234. That came in about 2013 or 2014, and I was elected in 2015, so I do not have a lot of experience with R-1234. However, I do know governments worked hard on fixing the hole in the ozone layer, and the automotive industry was impacted immensely just with air conditioning. That is one area where governments have done good work in ensuring we could fix the hole in the ozone layer.

The other area, which is probably more tangible to folks, is the area of acid rain. I do not know if the Chair ever experienced acid rain, but again, this was something that governments took action on long before I was born. They worked to ensure automobiles were not producing the substances that create acid rain. We have actually seen a reduction in fuel mileage and horsepower because of these requirements, but we watched the air of every major city in North America improve dramatically. Today, we have not heard about acid rain for a generation, maybe longer, and the air in most cities is tolerable.

More recently, in 2003-04, we moved from worry about those emissions in gas powered vehicles to those of diesel vehicles. We may have heard consternation from diesel pickup owners in our ridings about some of the emissions controls, but those are targeting the acid rain producing materials that come out of internal combustion engines.

NOx and SOx are what they are called, and they are formed when the combustion temperature inside a combustion chamber is too high. Rather than the hydrogen in our hydrocarbon fuels and our carbon combining with oxygen to create water and CO2, the high temperature causes the sulphur that might be in the fuel to combine with oxygen, causing sulphur oxides. For the nitrogen in our air, which is 78% nitrogen, the high temperature causes nitrogen to join with oxygen so that we get nitrous oxides. Those come out of the tailpipe and cause the smell when we drive behind an old vehicle on the highway and it stinks. We often forget this, but when a carburetor vehicle from the sixties smells bad, it is the NOx and SOx we are smelling.

They are what was causing brown rings around the big cities. The air was actually visibly brown. When we see picture of places like Shanghai and China, the brown air we see is from the NOx and SOx. Industrial emitters produce a lot of NOx and SOx as well, but automobiles, particularly from the sixties, are really bad for that.

Governments worked on ending acid rain and reducing the NOx and SOx coming out of engines by using EGR valves, exhaust gas recirculation valves. They came in because manufacturers had to reduce the amount of emissions coming out of engines. They rerouted the exhaust back into the front end of the engine and that lowered the combustion chamber temperature, which then did not allow for nitrogen and sulphur to combine with oxygen to make those things.

Today we have more cars on the road in our major cities than probably ever before, yet acid rain is not something we hear about. Smog is sometimes a bit of an issue, but it has been dramatically reduced from where it was in the sixties. These were the actions that governments took back in the sixties, and in the nineties with respect to diesel engines, to reduce emissions. We are seeing the benefits of those actions, so I applaud them.

I think there is a role to be played by government action when protecting the environment, but I would like the problem and solutions to be clearly defined. I find it a bit frustrating that this bill does not target some of those things.

One of the issues I heard come up from across the way was the term “reproductive toxicity”. I do not know about members, but it is showing up on my radar with respect to infertility rates. Some folks are struggling to conceive children, and it seems to be an increasing problem in the world. Just like we tackled the hole in the ozone layer and the smog and acid rain situations of the sixties and maybe the nineties, it would seem to me that we should perhaps tackle some of these things on more of a case-by-case basis, rather than with a boil-the-ocean kind of environmental protection. Let us get to the bottom of some of these problems we see in the world.

The member from across the way mentioned reproductive toxicity. I am glad that it is in the bill and is being talked about, but there does not seem to be anything in the bill that says we are going to make it a priority and try to get the bottom of it. Is this actually a problem? What is going on here? We seem to insinuate that it is a problem, but we do not really seem to be focused on how to fix it.

This is an ongoing frustration of mine with the government, particularly of late, and I seem to share it with my NDP colleagues. The Liberals come in with a piece of paper that says “Housing Strategy” or “Environmental Protection Act” on the top of it. Then they pass on that blank piece of paper and ask what we are complaining about because they have an environmental protection act. They say, “Don't you see the words on the paper?” Well, we say it does nothing.

It is kind of the same thing with this right to a clean environment. I am glad we put on a piece of paper that we have this right, but what does it mean? I do not know what it means. Then they say they will work on it. Well, the Liberals have been in government for seven years. This is lazy governing. If they are going to just put words on a blank piece of paper and say they are going to fill it in after the fact, what was the point of bringing forward that particular piece of legislation?

Again, we see that here. It is hard to argue against the right to a clean environment. Those are very nice words, but what does that mean? I do not know what that means, because it is going to be filled in with regulations after the fact. We will do consultations and fill that in.

I am increasingly frustrated by this laying on the table of a piece of paper that says good things on it but does not actually mean a whole bunch. I asked the previous Liberal member what it means. It is a positive right in some sense.

Maybe I should explain a bit about the difference between negative and positive rights. A negative right is like the right to not have property taken away. The government may not impede property rights. That is a kind of negative right, and I do not see a problem there. A positive right is like the right to housing. It is great to have a right to housing, but how do we enforce it? What does that mean? Does the government then have to provide us with housing? Who must it take it from? That is the challenge sometimes with positive and negative rights.

The right against illegal search and seizure is a so-called negative right, as the government cannot impinge upon one's person. I think that is a good thing, but the right to a job, for example, is maybe more difficult to enforce and is also not necessarily something the government has to give. It does not have to provide us with a job. Who will the government force to hire us, essentially? These are positive rights versus negative rights.

The right to a clean environment strikes me as one of the so-called positive rights that I would have liked to see in the bill. I would like to see the government lay out what it means by that. What does the right to a clean environment mean? If someone does not have a clean environment, must the government move them across the country to a place where there is a clean environment? If we do not feel that the environment is clean, can we sue the government to clean it up? If we do not feel that we are living in a clean environment, what does that mean? That is essentially what I am looking for in this particular bill.

I would say that Conservatives over the years have had a very strong record in tackling some of the very issues that have come toward us, such as acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer and the NOx and SOx issues. Also, generally, given the word “conservative”, we are about conserving things. We have a great record in Canada of conservation efforts around wildlife, for example, and getting our hunting and angling communities to ensure that there are people out on the land monitoring all of these things. We work together to ensure that we manage our wildlife and I think that is important.

We have probably, over the last 200 years, improved wildlife numbers in Canada dramatically. The Canada goose was, at one point, on the brink of extinction. If we ask anybody about that today, it is definitely not a problem. We can go to any public park anywhere, and I am sure that the Canada goose being nearly extinct is not something anybody is concerned about anymore. The beaver, which is on our nickel, was near the brink of extinction at the turn of the century. In 1899, it had been nearly trapped to extinction for the fur trade. Today, the beavers are winning the battles against our highway crews in many places along Highway 88 in northern Alberta. I do believe the railway to Churchill was taken out by the beavers in 2017. The beavers are winning these wars. Why? It is because there are millions of them in Canada. These are success stories of conservation that we have had here.

These are stereotypes, and I often get accused of trading in stereotypes. Nonetheless, one of the differences between so-called progressives and Conservatives is the idea of trade-offs versus solutions. Conservatives are typically thinking in terms of the trade-offs of different policy proposals, whereas often the progressives are talking in terms of solutions to things. When they see a problem, they say the carbon tax will be the solution to climate change, and that is their argument to make. However, we would say that there are trade-offs to be made.

Think about the plastic straw, for example. We see that the plastic straw is being banned all around the world, including here in Canada, and we are bringing in paper straws. There is a case to be made for the plastic straw ending up in the oceans, but are the plastic straws that end up in the ocean coming from Canada? Well, we can clearly make the case that this is not happening. In general, the plastic in Canada is ending up in the garbage. It is being recycled, being put in a landfill or being used to create electricity, so that is generally not the case.

We can say that the trade-off between a paper straw and a plastic straw is that paper straws do not work. I do not know if members have gone to McDonald's for a milkshake and tried to used a paper straw, but it is terrible. The plastic straws work better. We can make the trade-off and say that while plastic straws might be a problem in parts of the world, they are not a problem here, so let us use plastic straws.

The other thing is the trade-offs between the CO2 emissions of things and the reality of other products. We are concerned about plastic ending up in our environment, and that is a valid concern, but we have to balance that against CO2 emissions. In many cases, plastic reduces our CO2 emissions dramatically. For CO2 emissions, the difference between using a plastic straw and using a paper straw is dramatic. The CO2 emissions per straw are something like 10 times lower for the plastic straw versus the paper straw.

If we think about that a little, it is great that the paper straw is decomposable. Maybe it does not work but it is decomposable, whereas a plastic straw is not and we have to make sure that it gets to the appropriate recycling department. However, the CO2 trade-off is that the plastic straw has 10 times fewer CO2 emissions over the lifetime of the straw.

It is the same with plastic bags versus paper bags. We could transport 1,000 plastic bags for the same effort as transporting 10 paper bags. We should think about that when going to the grocery store and using paper bags versus plastic bags, and about the amount of energy that it takes to haul paper bags to the store versus plastic bags. As for the CO2 emissions between a paper bag and a plastic bag, the difference is 100 times just in the transportation costs. There is a trade-off to be made there. There is a trade-off to be made between ensuring that plastic does not end up in our environment and addressing CO2 emissions.

As Conservatives, we understand that all of the decisions governments make are generally trade-offs. We are trying to find a balance between two extremes. Are we more concerned about plastic ending up in our environment? Are we more concerned about CO2 emissions? We made that trade-off extensively when it came to PPE. We have all come through this pandemic, but suddenly single-use disposable plastics did not seem to be as big of an issue anymore when we were concerned about fighting a pandemic around the world.

I remember going to get a test for COVID and there was a single-use apron, face shield and mask. They tested me and I watched them throw it all in the garbage and repeat it for the next person. For single-use plastics, suddenly we made that trade-off. We said that our fight against the pandemic was worth more than our concerns around plastic.

I am excited to see where this bill goes. I am hopeful that the government will clarify the right to a clean environment, and I am happy to take some questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question and also a comment.

The question is with respect to whether the Conservative Party will in fact be supporting Bill S-5. The member seemed to be implying that the Conservatives would likely be supporting it, at least in terms of referring it to committee. I would like some clarification on that, because the other day they brought in a concurrence motion in order to prevent debate on the bill.

My comment is regarding the member's reference to plastic bags. Many years ago, when I was an MLA, I was in favour of banning plastic bags. The member could google right now, as I just did, plastic bags in trees, and there are a lot more than what the member is putting on the record when we talk about a healthy environment. I see the banning of plastic bags as a good thing. Does the member support the banning of plastic bags?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was precisely my point around the banning of plastic bags. We make that trade-off between having plastic bags not end up in trees, but we then have greater CO2 emissions. That is the trade-off we are making, and that was my whole point. We have to see these things as trade-offs.

In the same way, when we were fighting the pandemic, we saw the trade-off between fighting the pandemic and seeing single-use plastic as not being a problem. Petroleum products have been a miracle product for humanity. As we have developed petroleum products, we have seen food waste dramatically reduced, and we have seen poverty being reduced around the world, so I am generally in favour of petroleum products being used. However, we must recognize that in most of these cases there are trade-offs to be made.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, in 2010, I believe that the government banned BPAs in baby bottles. Since then, some companies have been known to replace the substance with another substance that is just as toxic.

My colleague talked a lot about single-use plastics in the environment. Does he not think the regulations should be stricter in order to improve our health and the health of our children?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Yes, Madam Speaker, again, I was pointing out that perhaps we should tackle some of these issues more in relation to specific issues.

I mentioned reproductive toxicity. That is a noble cause to tackle, and I would like to see us tackle it. If there are environmental impacts that are causing that, let us get to the bottom of it. If it is the BPA in our plastics, let us prove that. Let us work on it. That is important, rather than these kinds of “boil the ocean” bills.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Peace River—Westlock talked about ways and the history of our working together, whether it be tackling acid rain; or working with Megan Leslie, the former member for Halifax, who put forward a motion banning microbeads, which has now been implemented; or my own motion, M-151, back in 2018, which my colleague supported and voted for, about reducing single-use plastics, including plastic bags, plastic cutlery, cigarette butts, and many different things that are lowering the impact. We are glad to see the government dedicate funding to address ghost and derelict fishing gear. That is actually being implemented on the coast right now. Is it enough? No, it is not. We need to go much further.

We know there are over 10,000 unique chemical ingredients used in various different products that are known to cause cancer, harm the reproductive system and disrupt the endocrine system. These are simple, low-hanging fruit that we can all agree on. Does my colleague agree that there should be mandatory labelling of hazardous substances in all consumer products?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we are, once again seeing these trade-offs that we have to make. We want to ensure that we have a healthy environment, but we also want to ensure that we have a healthy economy. In some cases, allowing consumers to make their own decisions on a lot of these things would ensure that we can get to where we need to be on many of these things. We have to take Canadians along on the journey.

I know the fight to end acid rain was a trying fight, but it was one worth fighting and there are no disagreements in Canada around that anymore. I hope we can tackle some of these things specifically, and we will come together on them, for sure.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question I have for my friend really boils down to whether he trusts the government to determine whether a substance is toxic, like a straw or a pen. It is saying all plastics are toxic. Plastics are—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. If members want to have conversations, they should take them outside. If they have a question or comment, now is not the time; I did not recognize them.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the real hypocrisy is that the Liberals had a previous member who was a minister, and in her riding in Chester, Nova Scotia, they have this technology, Sustane, whereby they can take plastics, distill them down to their original form, the different oils, and use them as biofuel. Instead of that, what do the Liberals do? They just ban straws all together. As my colleague said, these paper straws have an even larger carbon footprint.

Does my colleague feel that he can trust the government to politically ascertain what is toxic and what is not?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, I agree with the hon. member that I do not think we can trust the government to get it right. I know the Liberal members were hopeful.

I would tell them to make a definition of what they deem to be toxic and maybe put out a schedule of toxins. That would have been nice to see. They could have defined the “right to a clean environment” and put that in the bill. Then we could be debating that. I am certain that I would not agree with the government, because it is generally playing politics with this kind of stuff.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I asked the member two questions, and he answered the second part.

My first question was whether the Conservative Party supports Bill S-5. Would it like to see it go to committee?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, we do have concerns about the bill. I imagine the bill will pass and go to committee, so we will look forward to working with the government to ensure our concerns are alleviated. We would love to be able to support the bill.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of items in this bill that have been talked about. You mentioned plastic straws and things like that.

A few years ago, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle introduced a bill to ban sewage dumping in our country, which was defeated by all opposing parties in Parliament.

I am curious about your thoughts as to where something like dumping raw sewage into our rivers and oceans rates compared to the possible trade-off of a plastic straw. What is the trade-off on raw sewage? I am curious to hear your thoughts on that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members they are to address questions and comments through the Chair and not to members.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that comment, because I had that written down as another thing to talk about.

Not only did members not support our colleague's bill, but one of the very first actions the Liberal government took back in 2015 was to approve the dumping of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway. That seemed to be something counterintuitive. The government that seems to be so concerned about the environment approved the dumping of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway. It seems like it made an off-brand decision.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really like the approach the member has taken by framing policy questions in terms of choices. There are always trade-offs, and there is a tendency from the government to label something as a solution, while ignoring the reality of the trade-offs. I thought that was a fascinating approach, and I ask him to use whatever time he has left to continue on and explain that process.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, in some ways I was trying to outline the difference between Conservatives and progressives, which is that progressives tend to fall on the side of solutions, whereas we tend to fall on the side of trade-offs. There are many examples of how that rolls out, whether they be how we deal with crime, how we deal with the environment or how we deal with taxation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

Before I get going, I just want to take a quick opportunity to acknowledge my parliamentary secretary assistant, Kelly, who is celebrating his birthday today. Kelly has been a volunteer of mine since he was in high school. As a matter of fact, in the summer of 2015, when we were running against the Conservative government and Stephen Harper called an election in the middle of the summer, most of us were saying to ourselves, “Why is this election so long?” It was one of the longest elections in Canadian history.

Meanwhile, Kelly was celebrating the fact that Stephen Harper had called the election on or for his 18th birthday. On October 19, 2015, Kelly turned 18, registered to vote and cast his first ballot. He has been part of my team ever since, and is my parliamentary secretary assistant. I just want to wish him a happy birthday.

I was trying to think of what I was going to talk about as the debate was ensuing this afternoon, and I was not quite sure. Then the member for Peace River—Westlock got up and spoke, and it became very clear to me what I was going to talk about. I find it very interesting and very rich that the Conservatives on the other side of this House always hearken back to the days of the good old Conservatives, who fought for climate. Indeed, if we talk about the Progressive Conservatives, individuals like Flora MacDonald, who came from my riding, from back in the 1970s and 1980s, were Progressive Conservatives who cared about very important issues.

The member specifically spoke about two issues, and I will reference them as well. First, on the protection of our ozone layer, he is absolutely right. I think it is lost on a lot of people, the incredible work, through the leadership of Brian Mulroney, back in the 1980s, when it came to the ozone depletion and our approach on how we were going to solve this globally. I will read something from CBC:

They predicted that continued use of CFCs would completely collapse the ozone layer by 2050. Without ozone protecting us from the sun's UV rays, skin cancer rates would skyrocket.

Faced with that dire outlook in 1987, 46 countries agreed, in Montreal, to dramatically limit the use and production of CFCs.

Mulroney signed the protocol. So did Reagan, often considered the ur-Republican. Even Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady of British Toryism, got on board.

If members can believe it, led by Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, those countries literally saved the planet by protecting the ozone layer. The member is absolutely right when he hearkens back to the Progressive Conservatives and the role they played.

He also talked about acid rain. Let me read a quote, also from the CBC, about acid rain:

In 1990, Bush signed an update to the Clean Air Act that included regulations on emissions that were causing devastating acid rain in the U.S. and Canada. The Canadian government had spent a decade trying to get Washington to address the issue, but were met with resistance—until Bush.

This is the legacy of Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives. They fought for the environment. They did not care where the problem originated. They looked at it as a global problem and saw Canada's responsibility to lead the way, and on two occasions Brian Mulroney did exactly that.

Right after talking about the incredible work of Brian Mulroney, what did the member for Peace River—Westlock do? He asked why we would bother trying to get rid of plastic straws, because we are not using plastic straws; our plastic straws are not ending up in the oceans; it is other people's plastic straws. He asked why we had to use paper straws because other people are irresponsible. That is the Conservative Party of today. That is their approach. Their approach is not the Brian Mulroney approach or the Flora MacDonald approach of the 1980s. That is what we are faced with right now.

I would remind the member that Stephen Harper, the next “Conservative” prime minister to come from this place, did absolutely nothing.

I put it in quotes because we all know, and it is glaringly obvious, that ever since Stephen Harper came along the Conservative Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, that could elect somebody in Kingston and the Islands, Flora MacDonald, no longer exists. They can take the name and the colour, but what we have over there is the former Reform Party of Canada. That is what we have. We do not have the Brian Mulroney Conservative Party that cares about the environment. For the member for Peace River—Westlock to suggest that Conservatives have always been there to fight for climate, to fight for the environment, is incredibly rich because it draws no comparison to the party of today.

Then, when we think that we got to the furthest point possible with Stephen Harper, members across the aisle are even less progressive than Stephen Harper. If we will recall, it was Stephen Harper who said that pricing pollution makes sense. Why would that not make sense to a Conservative? We are literally talking about the economic model and how to incentivize market decisions through the economic model and the principles around an economy.

One would think that if anybody understood that in the House, it would be Conservatives, who purport themselves to be the saviours of the economy, the party that understands economic principles and how an economy works. Conservatives cannot even support a basic principle of understanding that, when we put a price on something, it will change and incentivize choice in the marketplace. Stephen Harper understood that. Stephen Harper is on the record having said it makes sense to put a price on pollution.

Where are we today? We get the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who comes along as the next leader and goes completely against that. Then we get the member for Durham, who, to his credit, and I almost felt sorry for him at times, recognized that he was dealing with a party that did not support this because it is motivated from an angle of denying climate and wondered how he would work with it. He set up this Air Miles-type program of trading off options and then getting to pick a prize at the end, a bicycle or something. He tried at least to build it into an economic model of some sort.

Then, of course, we get to the current leader of the Conservative Party, an individual who, time after time, gets up and harps on and on about how pricing pollution is not the answer, despite the fact that economists throughout the world, and one would think that Conservatives would listen to economists, say that it is, and despite the fact that it is proving to be the most effective tool throughout the world. Here we are. This is the Conservative Party of Canada today.

It is not the Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney. It is not the Conservative Party that literally saved the ozone layer. It is not the Conservative Party that saved us from acid rain and that worked and pushed George Bush for a decade to do something about it. This is a different Conservative movement and it is nothing like the Conservative movement that elected Flora MacDonald in my riding of Kingston and the Islands.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I hear the member talk so much about how carbon pricing is supposedly the most effective way of dealing with emissions. I would like him to put on the record how many megatonnes Canada's emissions have dropped since the carbon tax was put into effect by the government.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

To ask that question, Madam Speaker, trivializes the entire issue. It assumes that every other—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The member is going to give a response and I would hope that hon. members would like to hear that response.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the irony is that I am being heckled by one of the strongest and biggest climate deniers on that bench.

Nonetheless, to answer the question, the member is assuming that every other variable stays still. There are so many other variables involved in trying to measure this. It is a very easy talking point. I know the Conservatives love doing it. They are oversimplifying the issue. The reality is that the member has to look at this stuff holistically. He has to look at every variable involved, and when he does that, he will land on the same conclusion that every economist does and that every other nation has that has put similar practices in place.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in an earlier intervention, there is no doubt that there is a need to update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and that there are some very good things in Bill S-5.

However, surveys have found that there are a lot of toxic substances in ordinary consumer products. We had a study that found very high levels of lead in products that were being sold in dollar stores, including in canned food and children's toys. This bill does not have any requirement for more transparency from corporations about the presence of toxic chemicals in ordinary consumer products. Why is that left out of this version of the bill?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question and I cannot give the member the answer, but I can say that I would like to know the answer to that. I think people have the right to know what is in a product, in something that they are buying, and in particular if they are buying something for a dependent, for example, or if they are buying it for a child.

I think it is very important, as a parent, that I know, when I am purchasing something, if there is a potentially toxic chemical in there. I invite the question. I want to know the answer to it. I really hope that we get the answer to it through the process as the bill moves through the House, because I would like to know the answer to that as well.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend on his seven years in office in Ottawa and also wish Kelly, who is an incredible young man, a happy birthday.

To his point earlier, in terms of the need for carbon pricing and the history of the Conservative Party, if I recall, in the previous election that concluded in September of last year, the Conservative Party and those who are here, elected as a result of their platform, did run on a platform of carbon pricing. I am wondering if he could elaborate on what that impact has had on Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely right, including the member on the Conservative bench who is heckling me, who is a climate denier. Yes, they ran on it. They ran on a platform of putting a price on pollution.

It is not the same way that we are pricing pollution. It was done in a different way. It was proposed by their former leader, the member for Durham, in a different way, but they ran on it. They ran on the idea of pricing pollution.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Strike three.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would invite the hon. member, instead of yelling across, to ask a question and to be recognized, as opposed to—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I tried, but you did not recognize me.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

No, you did not get up on this one.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, who, on this side of the bench, is the so-called biggest climate denier?

Historically, what has occurred is that, when a scientific basis for a comment or an explanation is not in reach or does not exist, their reaction is to automatically call the person who is questioning the science behind what they are stating some sort of name.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it appears as though there is a bit of a jealousy going on, because maybe this member who is asking me the question is indeed the biggest climate denier.

We just have to watch the Gallant news network to see that for ourselves—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that he is not to use the name of an individual, either first or last, and I would ask the hon. member to ensure that he is careful with how he describes individuals.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Apologize. Resign.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure that the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke wants to hear the answer.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do apologize for using the member's name. I was actually referring to the newscast program. I thought that was the proper name of that and I was not trying to reference her name.

However, she is on the record suggesting that climate change is not real on multiple occasions, not just on social media but in the House. If it is going to be a competition as to who is the bigger climate denier, let the Conservatives sort that out on their own and then they can come back and tell us.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, if you check the record, you will find that when he asked that question last time, I replied that I agreed that the climate has been changing since—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise to speak to such an important piece of legislation. It is probably one of the more substantive pieces, as it would update and possibly modernize legislation that, in my opinion, is going to have a real impact on Canadians.

Having a right to a healthy environment is something that we should never take too lightly, and I believe this legislation would establish a framework that would provide a much higher level of confidence for Canadians. For the first time, we have a government in Canada that sees that each and every one of us has a right to a healthy environment.

I remember listening to newscasts years ago that talked about the chemicals being put into products that were ultimately sold to children. I am thinking particularly of those small products that infants and young children would put in their mouths, which were primarily imported into Canada. We did not know the chemical makeup of the paints used, for example, but the product was being put directly into the mouths of children and being digested.

There was a time when asbestos was recognized as a wonderful product, and homes in all regions of our country were using the product as a form of insulation. In fact, if we go far enough back in time, we will see that governments were possibly subsidizing and encouraging the consumption of that particular product.

How things have changed, and I see that as a very strong positive. Fast-forward to today. We are now debating a piece of legislation that would deal with many chemicals, carcinogens and toxins, and how we can make a difference in what the public as a whole is seeing in our communities. Whether it is walking down the street or purchasing a product, we would have a better sense of what it means to have a healthy environment in which to live.

Earlier, a member from the Conservative Party asked about this whole idea that any Canadian would be able to request a substance to be assessed, and he tried to portray it in a negative light to my colleague in the form of a question. I, too, will wait as we see the framework flushed out to see how that issue will be appropriately addressed. However, what I take away from this legislation is that, for the first time, we would be empowering the people of Canada to be able to say, “Here is a substance that causes concern from a health perspective that I would like to see the Government of Canada address.”

I see that as a strong, positive measure. The details of that will come out in time, but my colleague answered the question by saying that it would possibly require some sort of triaging to determine priority in terms of possible investigations. I do not know the details of it, but I think the vast majority of people would recognize that this is a significant step forward. When we talk about having a right to a healthy environment, that is the type of example that I will give to the constituents I represent. I think people can relate to that.

Today at second reading we are talking about the principles of the legislation. I am really encouraged that there is a commitment for ongoing reconciliation in the legislation. I made reference earlier to UNDRIP and how that is being brought in, in terms of the calls to action on the issue of reconciliation.

We have a Prime Minister and a government as a whole that recognize the importance of indigenous communities in dealing with legislation such as what we are talking about today. It was a commitment that was given virtually from day one when today's Prime Minister of Canada was first elected not as the Prime Minister but as the leader of the Liberal Party, in third party status here in the House. The Prime Minister made the commitment on the calls to action.

Even within this legislation it might not necessarily be the biggest highlight for all people, but the principle of what is being talked about, and incorporating it into the legislation, is another clear indication of the sincerity of this government wanting to move forward on the issue of reconciliation. It is so vitally important not only for the Prime Minister, but also for all members. Particularly within the Liberal caucus, it is something that is constantly being talked about in a wide variety of different departments.

In talking about existing substances, I do not know much in terms of science, but I do know there are carcinogens and toxins that, as everyone understands and appreciates, cause serious issues for our environment and Canadians in general. There is an established list, at least in part. It is important that we continue to assess and manage those substances. It is important that we keep an open mind, as no doubt there will be a need to add to that list. Something that is talked about within this legislation is the development of a watch-list. I would suggest we could take that back to some of my first comments in regard to Canadians being able to contribute to that.

We often hear from our constituents about the issue of animal testing, how animals are being used as test subjects for different consumer products and more. In a very real way this legislation is moving us forward on that issue in looking at ways in which we could minimize animals being used for testing.

The bill talks about labelling, an issue I made reference to earlier, and how we ensure there is consistency in labelling so there is a better understanding of what is in the contents.

My colleague made reference to the importance of provincial and federal jurisdiction. As a government, we are committed to working with indigenous communities, provincial governments and other stakeholders. Caring for our environment and protecting the health of Canadians is all of our responsibilities. We, as a national government, have a leadership role to play, and I believe Bill S-5 is demonstrating that leadership role.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was beginning to think there was a scintilla of hope that if this bill went to committee, there would be some sort of redemption, but the member opposite convinced me that there is not even going to be an attempt to make these initial decisions based on a scintilla of science. He said that somebody might be afraid or feel that something might be toxic and it is put on the list, but that is not the way we do it. We have a rigorous system for developing the list of toxic chemicals that exist here or that can be brought into Canada. He mentioned lead paint. I am sure he would be comforted to know that in Canada and the United States, we have not been putting lead in paint since 1992, not to say what is on the walls already that should not be.

From what he says, somebody who fears that ground beef could be toxic could have it put on the list and everybody would be denied ground beef and it would have a warning label. Actually, that was proposed earlier this year. I am glad that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency thought better of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are many things I could say.

One of the biggest differences between the Stephen Harper government and this government is that science is a factor. Science matters. We have seen that throughout the pandemic and with many other policy initiatives that have been taken, including in Bill S-5. It is not like someone from anywhere in Canada said that something was a bad substance and needs to be added to the list and then all of a sudden it appeared on the list. No one is saying that at all.

Obviously, science is a factor. At least when the Liberal Party is in government, science matters.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the right to a healthy environment, which obviously we support. I come from a coastal community. I can tell the House what it is like in coastal communities today. People cannot go anywhere without finding expanded polystyrene littered and broken apart along coastal shores, whether it be in coastal British Columbia or in Atlantic Canada. We know there are alternatives to expanded polystyrene that can be used which the government is not enforcing. The same member supported my Motion No. 51, which called on the government to regulate polystyrene in marine environments and reduce it, but the government has not done anything.

I am hoping my colleague will come forward with what the government is going to actually do to tackle polystyrene in marine environments and end this environmental disaster that is taking place. It is impacting our food systems, the environment and the ecosystem that absolutely relies on a healthy environment. I hope my colleague and his government will finally take real action in banning polystyrene from being used, especially in industrial use and marine environments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, our national caucus was at the Bay of Fundy. The tides were out and I was near the ocean bed at the Bay of Fundy. Protecting our bodies of water like the Pacific Ocean, the Bay of Fundy and Lake Winnipeg is of critical importance. That is one of the reasons that we came up with a list of banned single-use plastics.

We will continue to look at ways in which we can improve our environment, in particular our bodies of water.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, a lot has been said this evening as far as the track records of the different parties in this place are concerned. I would just like to draw the member's attention to this. The Conservative omnibus bill, Bill C-45, is pretty infamous. It revised the Fisheries Act and removed sections of banned activities, which resulted in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. It also altered the Navigable Waters Protection Act. There were so many pieces in the omnibus bill that were just an attack, an assault, I would say, on environmental protections in this country.

Could you comment further on the Conservatives' record as far as environmentalism is concerned?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address questions and comments through the chair.

I would ask for a brief answer from the hon. parliamentary secretary. He has 10 seconds left.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Fredericton is a very strong environmental advocate. I really do appreciate the many contributions she makes to the government caucus.

The member is quite right. The elimination of support for the experimental lakes program is another good example. It is something we have reinforced and continue to try to improve wherever we can. I am sure that she will ensure there is a high level of accountability in Fredericton and every other region of the country and that they are being well served by government programs.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House of Commons and to get a chance today to speak to Bill S-5, which is a piece of government legislation that comes to us from the other place. After it was introduced there, several amendments were made to the bill and it was sent to this House for more consideration. This piece of legislation mainly focuses on how the government will administer the Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as well as the Food and Drugs Act. I will talk about some of that in a moment.

First, it is worth noting that this is another environment bill coming from the Liberal government, which is a frequent topic. That is always something interesting to see when we consider the long list of hypocrisy, double standards, failure and empty promises that we keep getting from the government. That is why we often have to wonder what exactly the Liberals are trying to do whenever they are trying to bring something like this forward. Sometimes they are pushing political agendas or special interests in the name of supposedly helping the environment. Other times they are quickly trying to change the subject to distract from their failed policies or one of the many scandals that they seem to find themselves involved in on a regular basis.

For all we know, that might be why the government added a general statement that we should protect the environment, without really defining or explaining it any further. Regardless, it is important to remember how the Liberals tend to operate when any bill on this topic comes from their government.

Until recently, I was on the public accounts committee. Along with reviewing the Auditor General's reports, we had the privilege of being able to look at the environment commissioner's reports on a regular basis as well. This gave me and my Conservative colleagues a closer look at the government's record of not keeping its promises or of missing its targets. It is remarkable how, over the course of time on the committee, and I am sure many other members here who have sat on the committee would agree with me, there is a recurring theme of overall failure to get things done and accomplished. More than half of the reports that we saw in this particular Parliament indicated significant failure. In some cases, the government is not delivering because there was no plan or no effort at all to get it done.

The last environment commissioner's report that I worked on had to do with the just transition, as the government supposedly calls it. This is what the commissioner told us:

[T]he government has been unprepared and slow off the mark.... We found that as Canada shifts its focus to low‑carbon alternatives, the government is not prepared to provide appropriate support to more than 50 communities and 170,000 workers in the fossil fuels sector.

The government identified Natural Resources Canada as the lead department to deliver just transition legislation in 2019.

[We found [t]he department took little action until 2021, and it did not have an implementation plan to address this significant economic shift.... Without a proper just transition plan in place, there are risks that are comparable to what occurred with the collapse of the northern cod fishery in Atlantic Canada in the 1990s.

Why is this important? I represent an area in southwestern Saskatchewan and my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain is in the southeast corner of Saskatchewan. Right where our borders meet is an area that is going to be affected by this supposed just transition by the government. The towns of Rockglen, Willow Bunch, Coronach and many other communities in that area are going to be directly impacted by this. What we have seen repeatedly through the delays is that the government has not actually taken any steps yet to help these communities with this transition as the government is removing the number one economic driver in those communities and throughout that entire region. This has only been exacerbated these last two years, but that does not give the government the excuse of not being able to deal with something that it has implemented and forced upon these communities.

Whenever the government takes something away from someone, it has to be able to backfill it or replace it with something else. That is what the government is supposedly trying to do with a just transition, but we are just not seeing it. It is really important. Having gone through so many of the public accounts reports and seeing the failure, not even to have a plan in place is doing an extreme disservice to these communities.

I will talk about the town of Coronach as well. Coronach is in the riding of the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I met with the mayor because he is part of a regional group that is represented by both Rockglen and Willow Bunch in my riding. He was talking about how their town specifically was designed to accommodate a population base of closer to 2,000 people. The town has only around 800 people right now, though. With the removal of the coal mine and power plant from the riding, who knows what is going to happen to that population?

Coronach is a town that is uniquely set up to grow and blossom, if only there were some proper investments into the community, from both the private sector and the government, particularly from the government, when it is removing the number one driver of the local economy. This is a town that has all the potential in the world to be able to do more, but the government is making sure it will achieve less, and unfortunately it is going to be at risk of suffering a fate similar to other communities that have had their entire economies wiped off the map.

Again, I look at Rockglen and Willow Bunch. The government spent some money in those communities. That had nothing to do with this just transition plan, yet the government is saying that it was actually from that funding stream, which is completely backward and is not actually helping to address the problems these communities are going to have going forward. These are problems such as broadband, which would be a far more appropriate investment by the government into their communities. Instead, it is investing in other areas that are not on a priority list for these communities. They are seeking an opportunity going forward as the government removes this critical industry from them.

Something else the committee looked at in public accounts was the carbon tax. The Liberals call it a price on pollution as though it is supposed to help protect the environment and we have just not seen the results yet. It is supposed to be their signature policy for the environment, but we see it is not actually a serious approach to the issue of the environment. Instead, it has turned out to be a great excuse for the government to take more money from Canadians' pockets, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has released reports to confirm that Canadians, in fact, are receiving less than what the government is taking from them.

On the government's claims about the carbon tax being revenue neutral, when I asked the finance department about the amount of GST charged on top of the carbon tax, it confirmed that is over and above the $4.3 billion collected last year, but it could not actually give me a number because it was not keeping track of it. This is absolutely insane, because when we look at an energy bill, and I have many farmers who are sending me their bills to show how much carbon tax they are paying on their energy costs to dry grain, heat their barns and things like that, there is the carbon tax price and right below it there is a line for the federal GST that is collected.

Over time that becomes a lot of money, because there is a lot of carbon tax being collected now, but as we see the government planning to triple the carbon tax going forward, all the way up to $170 a tonne, that is going to be problematic, and we are going to see that GST number rise, yet the government does not even know how much money it is collecting from it. It is just insane. I do not even really know what more to say than that.

Bill S-5 is a bit different from the more outrageous examples out there. In particular, it would bring the focus back to Canada's legal and regulatory frameworks, which have already been in place for a long time. While many industry associations have supported the bill from when it was originally introduced, they have also expressed their concerns with some of the amendments it has received since then.

It is our job in the House to consider all of this and carefully review everything so that we can get the right balance, and hopefully the government will listen and reconsider some of the changes made to how it originally wrote its own piece of legislation. One of the first questionable issues for Canadian industry is a change to the wording related to the precautionary principle.

At first reading, the bill originally used standard wording, which is internationally recognized. It read, “the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. The key word in that sentence is “cost-effective”. It demonstrates that we fully expect the co-operative and responsible approach on the part of our industries to protect the environment. This expectation also includes awareness and respect for the needs and circumstances for those same industries. That is quite clear.

However, this statement has been amended to say, “the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. Such a change is not as small as it might sound. Those two words are clearly different with their emphasis, and this causes a shift in the meaning and interpretation of that section.

The other problem is that the bill refers to the precautionary principle, which is an international concept of long-standing international recognition. It represents a balanced approach between the environment and industry, and there is no need to move away from it. The wording for it is “cost-effective” and our law should faithfully reflect what it is citing, instead of creating uncertainty by changing what it says and what it means.

I will turn to another amendment made to this bill about assessing whether a substance is toxic. The original version mentioned vulnerable populations, but it did not include “vulnerable environment” as a new term, which has been added along with it. In Bill S-5, it is vague and unclear, which is not helpful and can create regulatory uncertainty for stakeholders dealing with the process of assessment or enforcement.

Again, we must not lose sight of the right balance between strong protection for the environment and practical concerns expressed by our industry. In that regard, it is a real possibility for a regulatory regime to become excessive and hostile to development.

We have seen a similar situation that is unnecessarily blocking resource projects across the different regions of the country. The Impact Assessment Act process has not only ruled out new pipelines for oil and gas, but also created challenges for forestry, and even more so for new mining projects, which are needed for the government's green ambitions.

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise once again to finish my speech on Bill S-5. For the benefit of my colleagues in the chamber today, I will do a quick review of where we were last week.

Before looking at how the bill is written, I explained why we should always be ready to question the Liberal government's real agenda whenever it makes announcements or introduces legislation about the environment. We need to look no further than its history of hypocrisy, double standards, failures and empty promises. If its members say that they are doing something in the name of the environment, it is not necessarily the case to begin with, and later we do not see the expected results.

Sometimes it gets worse than that, when a policy that claims to be helping the environment will end up having a negative impact on the environment. With all the economic and social costs, and with our industries attacked or neglected despite their own best efforts to be environmentally responsible, Canadians are left to wonder what the point of it really was, but it does not need to be that way.

There needs to be a balanced approach to caring for the environment and promoting industry. Bill S-5 seems to be a little different from the more outrageous examples that Canadians are used to seeing from the Liberals, but some of the amendments have raised concerns that we will not maintain the right balance, which is the point I was making before the House adjourned.

I was talking about one of those amendments in the section dealing with assessments of whether a substance is toxic or not. The original version of the bill mentions “vulnerable population”, but it has been amended to include a new term, which is “vulnerable environment”. As a new term, it is vague and unclear, and this could be another source of regulatory uncertainty for the stakeholders who are involved in the assessment or enforcement process.

Such a concern does not come out of nowhere. It is a real possibility, and we have already seen it happen more broadly with the same government's impact assessment process. It has not only ruled out new pipelines for oil and gas, exactly as it was expected to do, but the Liberals have made their hostility to that sector abundantly clear, and they will find any excuse to express it to the point of absurdity.

The Chancellor of Germany travelled all the way here to ask for our support in supplying them with more LNG, but we let him down. Since then, we recently heard the Prime Minister say that Russia invading Ukraine will accelerate Canada in its transition away from petroleum products, even though there is a surge in global demand for Canadian LNG and oil to stop relying on Russian energy. Despite the needs of our allies, the Liberals will not miss a chance to publicly attack our energy sector. This will be a sad part of the legacy of the Impact Assessment Act.

That same process has created challenges in other areas of resource development, whether it is with forestry or even with expansion in new mining projects, and I will provide a quick example.

In the CUSMA deal, when it was renegotiated, there was a three-year window to source lithium tariff-free regionally, but because of the Impact Assessment Act, there is not a chance that there will be a mining project in Canada put on—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has not yet touched on Bill S-5, which is certainly the subject of debate today, and I would ask you if there is a need to ask for relevance.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for her intervention. It is a reminder to always, of course, stick to the bill at hand.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has the floor.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about an amendment that was in there previously, so I have touched on the bill, but sometimes the truth does hurt.

I will finish with my example, quickly. When it comes to these lithium projects, we are missing the opportunity to source them tariff-free in that three-year window because of the impact assessment project. We were told in committee it would take approximately 10 years to be able to get a project going because of the Impact Assessment Act, so it is very important to have that issue raised when we are talking about this bill because we are talking about the environment.

As much as the Liberals want to talk about Canada leading a new industry of critical minerals for a green economy, the time frame, as I just referred to in that example, is an obstacle to starting these new projects. The government has spent a lot of time talking about how we have an abundance of raw materials for this emerging sector. Canada has what it takes to successfully compete in the global market for electric vehicle batteries and other products, and there is a lot of potential there if it works out.

It has always been true that our country is blessed with having so many natural resources. It is the economic foundation of our prosperity. The Liberals point to critical minerals as the answer to reducing emissions, creating new jobs and strengthening our position through an energy transition, but how can it happen if it takes too long to review and approve, for example, mining projects? All the minerals will stay in the ground.

The Liberals see an opportunity in front of them, but their own policy will make us watch on the sidelines as it passes us by, and they will sabotage their own environmental plan. The delay makes it all but impossible to get ahead of the curve and be competitive. I will take this opportunity to remind the government, once again, that stakeholders told us this when we were studying the subject at committee. This is what happens when the government does not listen or respond to practical feedback from industry. It is counterproductive.

I have already raised this issue with the minister, but the government has not acknowledged it and has not shown a willingness to reconsider what it is doing. Unless we take a different approach to development, one that is compatible with protecting the environment, this is a problem that will continue to hold us back. It will remain a lose-lose scenario.

There is another example of this that is closer to the subject of the amendment. Under the new fuel regulations, the government wants to rely on expanding the production of biofuels Again, it offers it as a solution for both the environment and our future economy. This would increase demand for crops like canola, and we are advised farmers should produce the higher yields required without using more land to do it, which remains to be seen.

However, this creates an incentive in a market dynamic for farmers and ranchers to switch to producing biofuel crops. That is their decision to make, and rightfully so, and many will probably want to do so because of the prices and other factors. It is not explicitly part of the regulation or the policy behind it to favour biofuels, but the reality is that we will have people breaking up natural grasslands to start growing these crops that offer higher returns. This is something I have already seen across southwestern Saskatchewan in my riding, and also elsewhere.

These are sensitive ecosystems, which could be the sort described as a vulnerable environment, as we see in Bill S-5, but this is a vulnerable environment at risk from environmental policy instead of toxic substances. If there is a strong incentive to break them up, they will no longer be conserved, as is currently being done, by farmers. After that happens, we will never get them back. As a result, we would also lose carbon sequestration and the other benefits grasslands and similar areas provide.

If we are trying to protect the environment, we cannot consider it in isolation, as though it is something opposed to industry. This is a real example where economic activity has brought added benefits to sensitive ecosystems. For a long time, the agricultural sector has preserved and revived the grasslands. It is in its best interest to do so. This fact has been recognized and included in conservation efforts, but now we are starting to disrupt the balanced relationship that exists, and that would have a negative impact on the environment.

This all goes to show the danger of something that sounds good as an environmental policy but does not care as much about consistency or consequences in the real world. It can interfere with climate goals and cancel itself out. With Bill S-5, it would be unfortunate if something like that happened again in an unforeseen way. It is why we need to carefully consider the details and feedback we are getting from stakeholders when we hear them at committee or when we are back home in our ridings.

Finally, the bill itself provides a right for anyone to request an assessment for whether a substance is capable of becoming toxic. This opens a wide door for the department to take in a large number of assessments outside of its regular work. We have seen how Liberals manage federal services and how easily those have been overwhelmed, whether it was with processing passports over the summer or the backlog of air travel complaints.

There is room for improvement in this bill, and we hope any remaining concerns will be resolved.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that when it comes to extracting critical resources like the products required for lithium batteries, Canada would somehow be standing on the sidelines. I think those were his words.

I would encourage him to talk to his Conservative colleague, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, who had a pretty big smile on her face last summer when the Prime Minister showed up in our area to announce that Umicore would be establishing a multi-billion dollar facility in her riding, the largest lithium battery facility in North America, for that matter. It does not appear as though corporate industry is waiting on the sidelines. It is jumping in feet first into the Ontario sector because it knows there is an opportunity here.

More importantly, the member now talks about lithium and the transition toward lithium and electrifying the vehicles that we have. Does that mean the Conservatives have now come to realize what the future holds, that the future is in electrification and we will be moving away from fossil fuel-burning vehicles towards lithium and electrification—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we always favour an approach whereby industry is given an opportunity to lead and we let people, the consumer, have a choice. Mandating things in or out is not a fair market approach. If electric vehicles are the best solution, providing the best value and product for a person to use, consumers will buy them. However, that is not the approach we are seeing from the government.

What I was referring to in the example I gave in my speech was the fact that the government negotiated a three-year window to source lithium regionally, tariff-free. It is going to take 10 years to do so. We heard that at committee. We have also seen other lithium projects in this country cancelled or scrapped after millions of dollars of investment in trying to get them going, because of regulatory uncertainty put in place by the government. Those are the issues we are seeing and continue to see not being addressed.

Conservatives definitely support those projects where we have development and resources, but the government is getting in the way and preventing anything from happening sooner rather than later.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all parliamentarians in Quebec voted in favour of a motion stating that Quebec should have predominant jurisdiction over the environment. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the division of powers in environmental matters.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very important role for the provinces to play. Certainly, we can see that the environment in Quebec is much different from the environment in Saskatchewan. A policy that may work in Quebec probably will not work in Saskatchewan, and one that works in Saskatchewan might not work in Quebec.

I think when the government tries to take a one-size-fits-all approach, it does not work. We need to have policy that works with the provinces and not against them. I would like to see the government taking a better approach that enables the provinces to be the masters of their own domain.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I lived right on the border with Saskatchewan for a long time. Cypress Hills is a beautiful interprovincial park there. It is fantastic. One of the conditions, however, that park is facing, as I heard from park officers, is that climate change is destroying the provincial park. The member would probably know about much of the drought that southern Saskatchewan is facing right now.

What is the member's climate plan to save Cypress Hills park?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park is a very unique and diverse ecosystem. It plays a very important role, obviously, in many industries in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. What is interesting about it, though, is that it is right in the heart of the Palliser Triangle. The Palliser Triangle is an area of the country that, when the country was being developed, was deemed to not be suitable for humankind. Drought is not something new. It is a naturally dry area of the country.

Cypress Hills generally gets more snow and rainfall than most other regions of the province, because of its unique nature. There is definitely drought in the areas right around it, for sure, but looking at the average snowfall, there is a lot of moisture there. We had a blizzard come through just this past weekend. At least we are seeing a good shot of moisture coming into the area.

We cannot control the weather, unfortunately, but again, having policies in place that will enable our producers to manage the grasslands and manage the forests helps prevent disasters and crises from happening in these ecosystems. Grasslands National Park is a perfect example of that, where the government in the eighties banned the grazing of the pasture land and we saw all kinds of issues in the ecosystem. Once it was opened up for grazing again, the balance was restored, and they have thrived ever since then.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as tempting as it is to engage in a discussion of a thousand-year record drought, I want to stick to Bill S-5 and its impacts. I have a close history and connection to the bill, and I want to ask the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands if he is aware of how deeply this bill is embedded in his own party. I hope that the Conservatives will support amendments to Bill S-5 and help strengthen them.

This bill was originally passed under the majority Conservative government in the late eighties. Interestingly, to me, as an environmentalist, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and overhauled, or, one could say, attacked, most of the environmental legislation in Canada, that government left the CEPA alone. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was not substantially changed or altered at all under Stephen Harper. In fact, the Harper government moved ahead on banning certain toxic chemicals using CEPA, for instance bisphenol A. There was never any retreat or attack on the ongoing work to create a safer environment for human health, which is fundamentally what the Canadian Environmental Protection Act's toxic substances sections are about.

Therefore, I am hoping the hon. member and the Conservative Party will be supporting this bill. It needs some amendments to strengthen it. It has not been overhauled in 20 years. My question for the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is this. Will he vote for Bill S-5, recognizing that it is part of his party's legacy?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, right at the start and I think toward the end, the member was referencing amendments. We are always open to trying to provide amendments. We hope the government will be open to working with us on amendments. We have seen a history of it not showing goodwill but ill will toward amendments coming from this side of the House. We are trying to work with it in good faith on them and continuing to push for amendments to make this a better bill.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a fulsome speech. It was very interesting.

I wonder if he could comment on some of the Liberal amendments. The Liberal Senate put in 24 amendments, of which 11 made the bill much worse.

One of the things I am concerned about is this. We hear the Liberals talk about auto manufacturing and wanting to bring more of it to Canada. I do not know if the House realizes, but items manufactured from plastic are now on schedule 1 and listed as toxic. One of the things Canada could really benefit from is not having regulations that are outside the norm in North America.

I wonder if the member could comment on the danger of amending legislation like this and if he maybe has a solution we could put forward to help the automotive industry and other industries, like the medical field, that rely on single-use plastics.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. There seems to be this ham-handed approach to either drafting legislation or making amendments on the other side of the aisle. Again, we have to work with industry. We have to work with our stakeholders.

The member raised a very important point. Whether it is on the medical side, with single-use plastics, or vehicle manufacturing and building vehicles, a lot of the time these components in our vehicles are manufactured in the manner and the means they are for safety purposes, so they are safe when we are driving down the highway. Manufacturing them the way the member has alluded to might impact the safety of these vehicles. As the government is shifting its vehicle fleet to electric, there are underlying safety issues with those vehicles that remain to be addressed, for example, how much heavier they are.

There remains an ability for the automotive industry to address some of those concerns, but if it is tied to unnecessary regulations that make things more difficult for the industry, it is going to be a lot harder for it to address those concerns going forward. We have to work with the industry, not against it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise and speak to this issue. I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.

It is fascinating to be in the House talking about an update to outdated legislation to protect civilians and children from toxic “forever chemicals” and see the Conservatives wrapping themselves in defending plastics and toxic chemicals as somehow a vision for a better Canada. It really is peak Conservative.

I think of how far the Conservative Party is today from the Conservative Party back in the days when Brian Mulroney first brought the legislation through. He was a prime minister with whom I disagreed on many things, but he helped negotiate the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement that literally saved the life of this planet.

The Conservatives today, if we were dealing with something like the ozone hole threat, would be lighting their hair on fire, the ones who have hair, and attacking this as some kind of disinformation and conspiracy theory. However, Brian Mulroney was able to work internationally on that.

He also pushed the treaty on acid rain, which was destroying the lakes across my region in northern Ontario. Under the new Conservative leader, he would be embracing acid rain, telling us it was the best thing that ever happened and that we had to support it.

When we are talking about a straightforward update for dealing with toxic chemicals—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague, earlier in his speech, shamed those of us who may be follicly challenged in this House, and I take offence to that. I would ask for our hon. colleague to apologize.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I think we are descending into another debate.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to my hon. colleague. I love the man but he is follicly challenged, and sometimes the truth does hurt, as do some of the other Conservative policies. He is a good MP, I will say that.

I want to speak to the bill today in the larger context of where we are with respect to having a national vision

The Conservatives are monkey wrenching my notes. It is like they are after me all the time.

I want to speak to the overall need for a coherent vision, and this bill is part of it.

Today, we have learned that oil production in Canada is at its highest level ever, 3.6 million barrels a day. We know that we are going to have another 500,000 barrels a day coming from Bay du Nord. Of course, the $21 billion in public money from TMX will give us another 800,000 to a million barrels a day. This is the Liberal vision for dealing with the climate crisis. The planet is on fire: let us boost oil production.

The government has put about $18 billion a year into subsidies to oil. What is that getting us?

It is fascinating that if we break down the numbers that are coming out of Alberta today, not only are we at the highest level of oil production ever, we are at the highest profits ever. Over the last year, $140 billion in profits came out of the oil patch in western Canada. That is 75% higher than it was in 2014, but only 7% of that is being reinvested in operations.

Oil operations are like mines. We can run a mine and strip it of its assets, but to make a mine profitable in the long term, we are constantly having to reinvest in construction and involvement. Only 7% is going back into the oil sector, with 25% less workers now and under-record profits. Fifty-two thousand jobs have disappeared out of the oil patch at a time of record profits.

As Bruce Springsteen says in his song, “Foreman says these jobs are going boys and they ain't coming back.” These jobs are not coming back to Alberta, because the oil lobby and the oil sector are putting this money into giving the shareholders the benefits. This is going to international capitalists and lining their pockets on Canadian natural resources. They are also spending the money on automation, so they can get rid of more workers. This is the economic vision, certainly of the Conservatives, who believe that the more oil is pumped up, the more profits that are made, and it does not matter about workers. I look to the Liberals and ask what kind of vision do they have.

We know the Prime Minister made a statement that Canada was back. He said that on the stage in Paris. However, we have seen no coherent commitment for dealing with the environment and with jobs. I challenge the government.

The Alberta Federation of Labour came here with its plan, representing the industrial workers of Alberta, saying that the transition was happening and that its workers were suffering through the transition. It knows there is a better future out there and it has asked the government to come to the table and start working on a coherent strategy.

We hear about the critical mineral strategy. We hear the government talk about a new energy economy, but we do not see any investment. This new energy economy does not appear out of the blue. We cannot wish it in. The Prime Minister cannot just get a tattoo on his arm and create a new energy economy that is a clean energy economy. It requires investments; it requires a strategy.

This is what Joe Biden has done in the United States and this is what we, through the Alberta Federation of Labour, are asking for, a coherent strategy.

What does this mean with respect to potential? Calgary Economic Development did a fascinating report, saying that the clean energy economy was $3.8 trillion. That is the opportunity. There is no place on the planet that has a greater potential for investing in clean energy right now than Alberta. Certainly, Calgary is in the top ten for clean tech investment. It is saying that if we do not start making these investments now, not only does Alberta lose, not only does Canada lose but the planet will lose. It has estimated that if we have a coherent strategy in clean energy, it is a $61-billion opportunity. That is just for Alberta not counting the rest of Canada, which has enormous opportunities as well. This could create 170,000 jobs. That is what we are dealing with.

We are dealing with a planetary crisis, but we are also dealing with a unique opportunity. If members had heard Gil McGowan when he was in Ottawa, he spoke on behalf of the boiler workers, the operator engineers, the electrical workers, Unifor, steelworkers, those who are actually doing the industrial production in Alberta. They are saying that there is a huge opportunity for us to move forward, to move out of boom-and-bust, but if we do not take that opportunity, those jobs are going to go elsewhere. We know they are going to the United States right now, because Biden is stepping up on this.

If we are going to have a coherent strategy to bring in investors, we need a government that actually has a vision. Unfortunately right now, we have Danielle Smith in Alberta. It is impossible to keep up with the idiotic statements coming out of her office. One thing she did last week was abolish the Ministry of Labour in Alberta. She thinks this is red-tape cutting, but this is about certainty. When big employers do not have an oversight for basic things like the occupational health and safety codes or employment standards, they leave themselves open to all kinds of action, if their workers get injured.

Danielle Smith does not understand—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Lest my friend from Cypress Hills—Grasslands thinks I am biased in the matter on which I raised a question of relevance, while I have not disagreed with a single word from my friend from Timmins—James Bay, I have not heard much about Bill S-5.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would like to remind everyone to stick to the bill we are talking about. Relevance is something that keeps coming up.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I know it really bothers the Greens that the New Democrats are talking about a vision of moving ahead, because we believe in jobs as well as in economy that is based on sustainability. I know it get their backs up a little, but this issue is about where we are going as a nation with respect to a coherent strategy.

Bill S-5 is part of that. We have to be sending a message to the nation, but also to the investment community that Canada gets the fact that we need to have proper standards. We need to have those standards in order to draw investment, in order to create a transformative economy. Nice words alone will not cut it. Nice words from the Prime Minister will not cut it. Crazy talk from Danielle Smith will definitely not cut it. We need to do better.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the way the member opened up his speech this afternoon. He talked specifically about the difference between the current Conservative Party and the Conservative Party that it likes to identify itself with, which was the Brian Mulroney Conservative Party.

Brian Mulroney did some pretty incredible things. He brought 46 countries from across the world to Montreal to establish a protocol on protecting the ozone layer. He spent a decade pushing Washington to do something about acid rain before it finally agreed.

I wonder if the member could enlighten the House on this. If it is not the Brian Mulroney Conservative Party across the way, what exactly is across the way?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, imagine someone asking me to defend the legacy of Brian Mulroney, but that is the state of politics in our country today.

The one thing we could say about the Conservative Party, the then Progressive Conservatives, is that it understood that protecting heritage and environment mattered. We do have a Prime Minister who is supposed to be the environmental feminist Prime Minister, and yet oil production has gone up under his watch and I think, if we look, subsidies to oil have gone up over the Conservatives. We are seeing a disconnect on both sides.

What is missing in the House is that we do not have a Progress Conservative Party anymore. We have the convoy party. We have the World Economic Forum disinformation team, and it has formed government in Alberta, which is scaring investors away because it is coming up with some of the most crazy stuff we have ever seen.

I would take any of the Robert Stanfields, Joe Clarks, the Flora MacDonalds, the Conservatives who could actually stand up. However, on the other hand, we are still dealing with those Liberals and they are like Teletubbies. They keep bouncing up with more promises, but they are not delivering the jobs we need in western Canada and in the oil patch.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure what to think of the reference to Teletubbies. This is the second time the member has mentioned this.

The member talked about the economy and how important it was that it worked with our environment, like with sustainable environment and economic development, these types of things. Before we know it, my colleague will be talking about the importance of the middle class and how we have to ensure that we enable people to become a part of the middle class.

I want to ask my colleague and friend a question. When we think of Bill S-5, many of the things it would do is make Canada's environment protection laws stronger and ultimately make Canada healthier. Would he not agree with that summation?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important we pass the bill, and I am shocked the Conservatives, of all things, are embracing toxic chemicals as a fight against the Liberals.

I would have spoken much more about the middle class, but the Liberals sure have done a pretty good job over the years with their neo-liberal policies of kicking the middle class back into the working class. We need to maintain that, but part of that is certainty. The Conservatives are talking about mining projects getting off the ground in three years. That is ridiculous.

I come from mining country. Mining development requires consultation with indigenous communities. It requires doing the heavy lifting. Once we have done that, we have certainty. I will talk about many mining companies and how that certainty is essential for reassuring the long-term development and that investors understand we are doing it right. We need to have that climate in Canada.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Timmins—James Bay listened to my speech on Bill S-5 from the other day. I talked about how the ozone layer was fixed, how the acid rain stuff was fixed and how the automotive industry had really contributed to that.

I am concerned about this bill. The right to a clean environment is like boiling the ocean. It is not very specific. I wonder if he has comments around that. Particularly, fixing the hole in the ozone layer and acid rain were very specific things we tackled. What specifically would this bill tackle?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is such an obvious motherhood statement. I find that the Conservatives are mistrustful of people having a right to a clean environment. It really does worry me about what they are thinking over there. Certainly, when they were going to dump the toxic sludge from Toronto's garbage into our water system in my region, we stood up and fought that, because we have a right. Every citizen has a right to a clean environment. I would hope that the one thing Conservatives could agree on with us is that, if nothing else, we should have a clean environment. Apparently that is not so.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my hon. colleagues who are present in this chamber today to talk about something that is really important. I am a young person and we have not updated this bill in 20 years. I was nine years old when this bill was passed, so it is about time that this House understand the impacts of the last 20 years and the importance of updating this legislation.

I mean that in earnest. I know that we often talk about differences in this House, but it is a very true fact that every party has contributed to the reality of the protection of our environment. I hope every party can continue the legacy of Mulroney's Conservatives, the Liberal governments that have supported amendments and the New Democrats, who have pushed for an environmental bill of rights, for example. I know it is possible that we can, in fact, have a fulsome discussion about climate change, our role in protecting the environment and how we can come together in doing that.

I want to preface my statements today with how remarkably beautiful Canada is. Each and every one of us, I am most certain, has been able to enjoy the majesty and beauty of what are Canada's beautiful and natural resources and sights. I am from Alberta. From the great Prairies all the way to the Rocky Mountains, we know how important this is for people. I can recall in my own life seeing the grandfathers for the first time. That is what we call these massive mountains in our Cree tradition. They are beautiful and majestic and have been there since time immemorial. It is truly a testament to the fact that our country is one of the greatest.

Knowing that one of our greatest truths and our greatest assets is our natural beauty, it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to do our best to protect it. To leave this place better than how we found it is truly the mission I believe in.

I want to acknowledge the countless number of advocates and activists who have made this possible. Without hearing from each and every one of those folks, we would not have the bill in front of us today. I do know there are some loopholes and issues in the bill, but the New Democrats stand in support of making sure we can get it to committee and work on it.

I want to talk about what the bill would do.

One, it is important to recognize that it would give Canadians an understanding that they have a right to a healthy environment. This could not be any more important now today for young people. When young people are looking at their futures, when they are looking at our country and when they are looking at the world, they are asking themselves where they fit in, what 2050 means to them, what 2030 means to them and what their lives will look like then. We owe it to the next generation to guarantee that they can live in a healthy environment. They deserve that.

Two, the bill would confirm the government's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a step toward a kind of justice that indigenous people have been deprived of for generations regarding their role in this place and their role on these lands. The fact is that indigenous people continue today to steward these lands.

I want to recognize one particular nation that is doing this right now and is up against one of the greatest fights for our natural beauty in Canada. It is the Mikisew Cree First Nation. The Mikisew Cree Nation is in the heart of the industrial lands of Fort McMurray. I met with them this summer to talk about their concerns with the fact that here in Canada we have a UNESCO world heritage site, Wood Buffalo National Park, that is under risk of being deregistered. I want that fact to sink in: A G7 country like Canada is failing to uphold environmental conditions so greatly that the UNESCO committee may withdraw the status of Wood Buffalo National Park. It is a true tragedy facing our parks.

The Mikisew Cree Nation has played an immense role in protecting the lands of Wood Buffalo National Park, even before Confederation and since time immemorial. These lands are valuable. They contain within them the spirit, strength, knowledge and stories of generations, and we have to do our utmost to protect this place.

The Mikisew Cree Nation is proposing that we create an indigenous conservation environmental survey group for Wood Buffalo National Park that would look at some of the ways we could implement UNDRIP, for example, in relation to this bill. The Mikisew Cree are also fearful of the toxic tailings ponds that are still present in northeast Alberta. They have spoken to me and asked that the Liberal government not allow the release of toxic tailings into the river. This is the most critical lifeline for the Mikisew Cree. The river is life. Water is life. We must do what we can to help the Mikisew Cree.

Lastly, the bill would strengthen chemical management. This is so fundamental to a developed country like Canada. The fact that we fail to have more credible toxic management is why we are seeing terrible pollution in our natural waters. Water in Canada is one of the greatest beauties we have, and we know from activists like Autumn Peltier how valuable, spiritual and important clean water is to indigenous communities, to their spirituality, to their culture and to who they are.

These three points in the bill, namely the right to a healthy environment, the confirmation of the government's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the strengthening of chemical management, are all principles the New Democrats stand for. We will support this bill, but we must ensure that we do not end there.

We have so much more to do to protect our lands. Canada is at risk. We have faced some of the greatest natural disasters we have ever seen, from the great floods that saw central British Columbia almost cut off from the rest of Canada, to the Prairies, where I am from, which is seeing massive wildfires destroying whole communities, to the Atlantic coast, where we are seeing massive storms. This is the reality facing us as members of Parliament. Imagine how much worse this will get for the next generation.

We must have courage. I implore this House to look at meaningful steps to protect our environment. These are the commitments found in the great treaties we have signed with indigenous people. To go back on these commitments now is to truly forsake the next generation and our future. When we speak about the need for industrial and economic strength in Canada, it must not come at the cost of the next generation's right to the environment. It must not.

As a matter of fact, we know that we can do both. We can ensure a safe, strong, prosperous green economy here in Canada while preserving our greatest asset. It is possible. I do not believe the rhetoric from the delay Liberals and the deny Conservatives that we cannot do this. We can.

I know our Parliament is divided often, but not on something so important as the lives of children of the next generation. I know that many members of the House have children. I ask them to please look deep within their eyes and understand that this is a threat to them and that we must do everything we can to protect this generation.

Finally, I want to touch quickly on strengthening chemical management, the risk to some Albertans and the history that is already present there. The Jessa family, for example, has seen the terrible condition left to them by oil companies. They purchased land, posted by oil companies, for the purpose of wanting to start a life here in Canada, a good life, and they found that they were sold toxic lands. This is a family in Alberta right now that cannot recover land all by themselves. We are dealing with legacy issues in our environment, but this bill at least puts us on the path to stopping more atrocities like that.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his passion for his province and for fresh water, which I share.

As the hon. member will know, Bill S-5 was first introduced as Bill C-28 in this House, which was then Bill S-5 in the other place. I am going to preface my question with a shout-out to Senator McCallum from northern Manitoba, an indigenous senator who really made a big impact through amendments to the bill, those related to indigenous communities and peoples in Canada, by recognizing, as the hon. member has said, the importance of consistency with UNDRIP and recognizing traditional knowledge.

I wonder if the hon. member would add some further reflections on the indigenous content and whether the bill has been improved. Will he work with the government to further improve the bill?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand committed to working with the hon. parliamentary secretary for the environment and the governing party to ensure we actually see results for indigenous people.

This is a long-awaited bill. I want to thank Senator McCallum, who is a good friend of mine, for her continued advocacy and strength for indigenous people in the area of the environment. Our greatest challenge in Canada, which will likely continue to be our greatest challenge, is tackling climate change. Indigenous people have the tools, the knowledge and the histories that are so important to understanding this and, more so, understanding the solutions. I stand ready to work with the government to ensure this.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the trouble I am having with this debate is that we are putting a lot of faith in a government that has made a lot of promises over the last seven years. It has failed in its boil water advisories plan for first nations and still allows and permits billions of litres of raw sewage to be dumped in our waterways. It has a Prime Minister who chastised indigenous protesters at an event and thanked them for their donation when they were protesting the fact he has failed to live up to his boil water advisories plan.

I would like to ask my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach what his thoughts are on that. We are putting a lot of faith in a Prime Minister who has let us down over the last seven years.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to let the member know how deplorable the conditions are on reserves in first nations, Métis and Inuit communities in the far north in relation to clean water. They are deplorable, and I have spoken on this fact many times.

Whether we can trust the government or not is the real question present to this House. The question is whether we as individual members of Parliament can ensure that our constituents and those we value, whom we want to ensure get good representation in this place, actually have a chance to have their voices heard and that the government puts that on record.

There is no doubt that the government is untrustworthy in the promises made to indigenous people, but as indigenous people have done so many times before, they give so much grace and strength to the process of ensuring the relationship is better. Whether it is a Conservative or Liberal government, or maybe even one day a New Democratic government, I hope every party sees that the first and most important relationship to this place is with indigenous people.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very touched by my colleague opposite's speech because I have children myself, and we are wondering what will happen in the coming decades.

My question is quite simple. I heard the member opposite talking about how we can ensure that Canadians live in a healthy environment. I would like to know what measures are set out in the bill to create a healthier environment. I would like more details on that.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Bloc has made significant contributions in this place to make sure there is good policy on the environment. I thank them for that.

Additionally, I believe that two levers are most important in this bill. One is the fact that the government is finally ready to commit to understanding the impacts of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is critical and cannot be understated. Making sure indigenous people have a seat at the table will provide solutions.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, especially on matters related to the environment. As we know, I am my party's climate change critic. I am therefore very happy to speak about Bill S‑5.

My colleague, the member for Repentigny, the Bloc Québécois's environment critic, has already informed the House of the Bloc Québécois's position on this bill. We are obviously in favour of the principle of Bill S‑5 because it is high time that the federal government take steps to modernize Canada's primary environmental protection legislation, known as CEPA.

Passed in 1988, CEPA established a framework for managing toxic substances and gave ministers the authority to regulate sources of pollution. The revised act came into effect in 1999 and there have been few amendments since. That means that the legislation that is to protect Canada's environment is over 20 years old. A lot has changed in 20 years. Science has evolved, industry practices have evolved and, unfortunately, the environmental crisis has worsened.

The update to CEPA is obviously good news, but members will not be surprised to hear me say that the Quebec nation is and must be solely responsible for public decisions concerning environmental protection in its jurisdiction.

Moreover, in April 2022, all members in Quebec's National Assembly passed a motion affirming Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment. To be clear, Quebec's elected representatives strongly stated their opposition to any federal interference in the environment in Quebec.

Over the years, we have developed environmental law in a way that allows us to move Quebec forward responsibly and for everyone's benefit. In doing so, we have exercised all of the powers that belong to us under the division of powers set out in the Constitution of Canada. Quebec's environmental sovereignty is effective because we fully assume the space available.

The Environment Quality Act is Quebec's primary environmental protection legislation. Naturally, its purpose is to protect the environment and the living species inhabiting it.

Quebec law prohibits the deterioration of the quality of the environment or the emission of pollutants or contaminants. It provides recourse to residents affected by any offence that compromises the quality of the environment, its protection and the protection of living species. It requires that an environmental impact assessment be conducted to carry out an activity that could present a high risk to the environment. It creates a special access to information regime, governs projects or activities that could have an impact on wetlands and bodies of water, and provides criminal penalties for individuals who contravene the law.

Reformed in 2017, Quebec's Environment Quality Act allows us to meet the highest standards in environmental protection. It is complemented by other Quebec environmental legislation, including the Sustainable Development Act, which allows the public administration in Quebec to consider the principles of sustainable development in its actions, including the principles of environmental protection, precaution, prevention and respect for ecosystem support capacity.

In Quebec, we also have an act affirming the collective nature of water resources and to promote better governance of water and associated environments, which gives every individual the right to access drinking water for hygiene and cooking and ensures that there is no net loss of wetlands and bodies of water. We also have the Natural Heritage Conservation Act, which seeks to protect the land by creating protected areas, and the Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife, which seeks to protect wildlife from over-harvesting and their habitats from degradation.

Finally, there is Quebec's civil code, which also contains provisions to protect the environment, in addition to other laws and regulations that also protect the environment even though that is not their only purpose. Most importantly, Quebec has its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which, since 2006, states, “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.”

Clearly, when it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. I am not saying that Quebec has a perfect model. We also share responsibility and need to do much more to protect the environment. What I am trying to say is that there is already a model in Quebec, because this falls under its jurisdiction.

I therefore invite members from all parts of Canada to focus their efforts on their provincial legislatures and urge their provincial counterparts to pass legislation that protects the environment. I encourage them to claim their rightful space in this domain with two goals in mind: to protect nature and to protect provincial autonomy, which is being undermined within the Canadian federation. If they want to draw on Quebec's environmental protection laws, they are welcome to. The provinces would do well to work together on the environment.

That being said, under the current legal framework, the federal government does have certain environmental protection responsibilities. The Bloc Québécois intends to do everything in its power to ensure that the federal government does its job properly, and one of its jobs is to modernize the CEPA. This is a necessary legislative update, and we will give the matter the full attention it deserves.

The Bloc Québécois is eager to work with all parliamentarians to ensure that the revised legislation best reflects the recommendations of health and environmental protection groups, as well as partners in the chemical industry who are most affected, particularly when it comes to chemicals management, the list of toxic substances, improved accountability for risk management, a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects of substances and mandatory labelling requirements.

My colleague certainly talked about a letter sent to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change that was signed by no fewer than 54 Quebec-based groups, including women's groups, health sector groups, neighbourhood groups and more than 200 citizens from all walks of life, expressing their deep concern about toxic contamination. They are right to be concerned, since much work remains to be done on this. I have that letter with me and would like to read a few passages from it.

As the letter says, these substances can be found all around us, whether it is in the air we breathe, both indoors and outdoors, in furniture and certain interior coverings, in our homes and offices, in our clothing and food and in a range of personal care products we use every day.

The letter mentions bisphenol A, better known as BPA, which is found in many items. It mentions that “despite their toxicity, there are still flame retardants in some children's sleepwear”. There may be toxic substances in the footie pyjamas worn by so many babies.

BPA, a well-known endocrine disrupter, “can mimic or interfere with estrogen in our bodies, producing a myriad of health effects”. There are many adverse effects. I will name a few because the list is rather startling.

The effects include “altered estrogen action, early onset puberty, altered breast development and breast cancer, ovarian cysts, polycystic ovarian syndrome, uterine fibroid, altered sperm count and quality, neural and behavioural effects, sex-specific changes in brain structure, obesity and Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease, altered liver function, and more”.

The letter also mentions perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. These are also very toxic substances that can be found almost anywhere and cause “cancers (testicular and kidney), hormone malfunction, thyroid disease, liver problems, immunological effects including decreased vaccine response, reproductive harms including decreased fertility, pregnancy induced hypertension and abnormal fetal development.”

I apologize to the interpreters as I read this rather quickly.

The letter also mentions that all these substances end up “in our waterways, our landfills and elsewhere” and obviously are found in our own human ecosystem, which has significant human health impacts.

Like most of my colleagues, I have received dozens of letters from my constituents and people across Quebec asking us to change CEPA to reflect the realities of the 21st century. I agree with them that we must do this important work.

In particular, they are asking that we strengthen the implementation of the right to a healthy environment. I must say that that will not be achieved by inserting the right in the bill's preamble. The changes we make to CEPA must contribute to ensuring that we have a healthy environment.

If we examine the bill carefully, we see that it does not create a real right to a healthy environment. Sure, it is mentioned in the preamble, but the bill does not contain any provision that would make that right enforceable in the courts, unlike the right that has been established in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms since 2006, as I mentioned earlier.

Obviously, citizens can always count on the Bloc Québécois when it comes to protecting the environment and promoting health. Good health is essential, and we often take it for granted. We fail to make the direct correlation between the environment and health, or rather between human health and environmental health. However, that is what people like Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers, a family doctor at the CIUSSS in Montreal East, are working hard to do. She is also the chair of the Association québécoise des médecins pour l'environnement and a member of the board of directors for the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. She thinks that climate change is the single biggest health threat in the 21st century and our biggest opportunity to do better. She also thinks that we need more ambitious public policies to protect our health and, obviously, I agree with her. She once said the following with regard to sustainable health, and I quote: “The best cure for the environment does not require a prescription”. Every day she sees the impact that climate change is having on the planet's health and people's health, and so she gave herself the mission of raising awareness among politicians and citizens.

I was speaking about Dr. Pétrin-Desrosiers, but she is not the only one who is addressing this issue in the public sphere. The World Health Organization has also declared that climate change is the greatest threat to human health. I want to share some of the facts that the WHO has published on its website:

Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health—clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.

Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.

The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between USD 2-4 billion/year by 2030.

Areas with weak health infrastructure—mostly in developing countries—will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.

Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution.

That is the main message from the WHO. Yes, the problem is significant and people are already feeling the effects of climate change, but by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we may be able to help mitigate those effects.

I will continue to read what the WHO wrote in October 2021. It said, and I quote:

Climate change is the single biggest health threat facing humanity, and health professionals worldwide are already responding to the health harms caused by this unfolding crisis.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that to avert catastrophic health impacts and prevent millions of climate change-related deaths, the world must limit temperature rise to 1.5°C.

We already knew that because it is something we hear often.

Past emissions have already made a certain level of global temperature rise and other changes to the climate inevitable. Global heating of even 1.5°C is not considered safe, however; every additional tenth of a degree of warming will take a serious toll on people's lives and health.

While no one is safe from these risks, the people whose health is being harmed first and worst by the climate crisis are the people who contribute least to its causes, and who are least able to protect themselves and their families against it — people in low-income and disadvantaged countries and communities.

The climate crisis threatens to undo the last fifty years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction, and to further widen existing health inequalities between and within populations. It severely jeopardizes the realization of universal health coverage (UHC) in various ways — including by compounding the existing burden of disease and by exacerbating existing barriers to accessing health services, often at the times when they are most needed. Over 930 million people — around 12% of the world's population — spend at least 10% of their household budget to pay for health care. With the poorest people largely uninsured, health shocks and stresses already currently push around 100 million people into poverty every year, with the impacts of climate change worsening this trend.

Obviously, those of us who live in a country with a public health care system are a bit more fortunate, but that is not the case for everyone around the world.

I will keep reading what the WHO says:

Climate change is already impacting health in a myriad of ways, including by leading to death and illness from increasingly frequent extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, storms and floods, the disruption of food systems, increases in zoonoses and food-, water- and vector-borne diseases, and mental health issues. Furthermore, climate change is undermining many of the social determinants for good health, such as livelihoods, equality and access to health care and social support structures. These climate-sensitive health risks are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, including women, children, ethnic minorities, poor communities, migrants or displaced persons, older populations, and those with underlying health conditions.

...scientific advances progressively allow us to attribute an increase in morbidity and mortality to human-induced warming, and more accurately determine the risks and scale of these health threats.

In the short- to medium-term, the health impacts of climate change will be determined mainly by the vulnerability of populations, their resilience to the current rate of climate change and the extent and pace of adaptation. In the longer-term, the effects will increasingly depend on the extent to which transformational action is taken now to reduce emissions and avoid the breaching of dangerous temperature thresholds and potential irreversible tipping points.

When a credible organization like the WHO publishes this kind of report, I think it is our duty as elected representatives to take it seriously and, more importantly, to act to mitigate the effects as much as possible.

Of course, just modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act alone will not solve everything, but there are still some aspects that deserve our attention and need to be properly defined. We therefore need to analyze those aspects carefully to ensure that the modernized act really does allow the federal government to fulfill its responsibilities in the area of environmental protection, while ensuring respect for Quebec's environmental sovereignty.

I would like to point out that the bill does include a number of elements that raise some issues of a constitutional nature. Every level of government can pass laws to protect the environment if those laws are related to an area of constitutional jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867. This is what is known as concurrent jurisdiction.

Consequently, the federal Parliament can pass legislation on toxic substances given its jurisdiction over criminal matters. However, Bill S-5 is about more than regulating substances. It proposes to regulate products. It seems to me that this broadens the federal government's role. The bill proposes to allow the environment minister to require the communication of information concerning activities that could contribute to pollution.

Regulating products and activities or pollution is different from regulating toxic substances. Here is another example. Usually, when prohibitions are issued under the Criminal Code, they are accompanied by sanctions for non-compliance with the law. I do not think this is the same as issuing authorizations, much less authorizations that have conditions attached. If the federal government can pass legislation under the Criminal Code, the law should not use public policy instruments that the Criminal Code does not allow to be used. My colleagues must agree that this could be a slippery slope.

As members know, I am an environmentalist. Saving the planet, saving biodiversity and fighting climate change are important to me. I trust no one believes that I would be happy to forgo regulating pollution, far from it. I simply want the government to respect the division of powers and especially the work that is already being done in Quebec. In addition to respecting the principle, we also have to try to avoid costly administrative and regulatory overlap that leaves everyone confused.

If the government wants to pass good legislation that is supported by the parties, it has to take steps in advance to ensure that the constitutional validity of its legislation will not be disputed. Did it consult the governments of Quebec and the provinces? I would be surprised, because the bill in its current form has quite a few constitutional problems. Those need to be addressed.

Accordingly, during the study of the bill, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that there are no clauses or provisions in it that can be considered intrusions into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Of all the areas that unquestionably fall under federal jurisdiction, all my colleagues from the other parties, as well as the Minister of the Environment, know that they can count on us to ensure that we have the most robust environmental legislation possible. It is our duty to make sure of it. It is also our duty to reassure the public and give it what it is asking for: a real right to a healthy environment.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Bloc colleague for a very well researched and thought-out speech. She mentioned a lot of the different toxic substances that are actually in our environment. Sometimes it can take decades before we really know the effects of that. I want to talk about one specific thing she brought up: the new right to a healthy environment. I am wondering how confident she is that the Liberal government will be able to achieve this. After all, for the last seven years, it has not met one environmental goal that it has put forward. It certainly is looking at a top-down approach, as she mentioned, and not respecting provincial jurisdiction.

How confident is my colleague that the Liberal government, in two years, will actually be able to achieve such a worthy goal when it has not achieved anything in the last seven?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for asking such a great question.

Including the right to a healthy environment in the preamble of a bill is one thing. However, if the legislation itself does not reflect that idea, it is difficult to achieve.

I was saying that there is a link between health and the environment. Just about everything is interconnected. We must make the necessary efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions; otherwise, we will not necessarily reduce the risk to human health. It is all interrelated. I think we have to act on several fronts at once.

I am not necessarily encouraged when I see how little action this government has taken over the years. I do not think we are going to get there tomorrow morning. It requires far more complex changes, but we need to start somewhere.

Modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a good thing. However, it is clear that Bill S-5 does not address all areas of environmental legislation. I think there is still a lot more to do after this bill is passed.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I really appreciated what she said about how pesticides affect people's lives and health.

In the summer of 2021, the Liberal government decided to increase traces of pesticides, including glyphosate, in pulses and berries. There was outrage, and the Liberals were forced to backtrack. At the time, they promised to be more transparent.

Today, we learned that an organization called Vigilance OGM received 229 blank pages from Health Canada in response to its ATIP request.

What does that say about the Liberals' concern for people's health and their government's transparency?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is another great question, and I thank the member for asking it.

It speaks volumes about several things, including the fact that it might be time to review the notorious Access to Information Act. Obviously, getting entirely redacted documents or totally blank pages is not a good thing for citizens, groups or anyone who wants more information about how the government works, regardless of the subject or field. That is one thing.

Second, regarding glyphosate, I remember seeing the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, along with several environmental groups, sounding the alarm about that, even though we often hear that opposition members do not serve much of a purpose. In the end, we got the government to back down. This shows that we do serve a purpose, because when we see that something is wrong, we point it out to the government so it can change course.

I think it also says a lot about transparency. The government seems unwilling to be completely transparent on a number of things when it comes to the environment, food and health.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who always works hard for the environment. She is an absolutely wonderful member of Parliament.

My question is about the right to a healthy environment. During today's debate, I noticed that some members found it odd to have a right to a healthy environment.

At present, 150 countries have enshrined the protection of the right to a healthy environment into their constitutions, regulations or bills.

Is the member aware of the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which recently recognized the right to a healthy environment?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are on the same page. In fact, in my speech I was talking about what has been enshrined in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms since 2006, namely the right to a healthful environment and healthy biodiversity.

It is only natural for a nation to choose to enshrine that in its own legislation. It is good that Canada wants to do that. However, as I said earlier, it has to walk the walk so that we can truly have the right to a healthy environment.

When I see all the effects of toxins on human health and I see that these things could be banned by the government but have not been, I have a hard time seeing how the government can really offer the public the right to a healthy environment.

The member's question was on the need to implement this. The answer is yes. I agree with her. It is necessary to do this, just as Quebec has done.

I want to come back to the importance of respecting what is already being done in Quebec. Environmental sovereignty is an extremely important concept. Yes, we want to do more for the environment across Canada. Since we sit here, we obviously want to improve environmental protection laws, but we also have to respect jurisdictions.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her support for the legislation. Yes, we can always do more. The constituents in the riding of Waterloo have a diversity of perspectives and opinions, but I have been receiving a lot of emails asking for us to advance this legislation quickly. I agree with the member that we can always do more.

Does the member acknowledge that the steps we are taking are moving us in the right direction? I will commit to working with her to do more, because we can always do more to protect the environment.

While I am on my feet, I want to say happy Bandi Chhor Divas and happy Diwali to everyone celebrating today.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that Bill S-5 is a good step forward. However, I read a lot of the news in preparation for my speech today, and this is a rather complex bill in many respects. It is full of technical detail and one needs quite a lot of knowledge to understand the legislative changes that are being made. The Senate has already made a number of changes that will need to be verified at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I agree that we need to fast-track the fight against climate change, and I understand that this is not something that can be done at the drop of a hat. However, we need to do it as quickly as possible and do it right.

The Bloc Québécois members are prepared to work with all the other parties to improve this legislation, to ensure that it is ultimately a good bill and to make certain that everyone is in agreement. However, we cannot do this too quickly, because it would be a missed opportunity to really update this act.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of things that helped me prepare my question. The opposition party is very constructive and raises issues that come up over time. We realize we need to deal with Bill S‑5, but there are also other things the government must act on quickly.

While the principle of Bill S‑5 has merit, I would like to give my colleague a chance to tell us what more we can do.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many other things that can be done to protect biodiversity.

When I hear about the government green-lighting oil exploration projects off the coast of Newfoundland—like Bay du Nord, which just got approval—and about how these projects can threaten marine species, I cannot believe it. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is not the only environmental protection tool we have; there are other ways to take action too.

According to the World Health Organization text I shared earlier, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions can positively impact the observed negative effects of climate change on health. I think that, by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we can achieve that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about Bill S-5. We on this side of the House certainly have some concerns about the bill, and I will talk about that a little later in my speech.

First, this is an environmental bill. It is the first update to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in a very long time. Of course, protecting the environment is something that is very important and something that we should all care very deeply about. However, the challenge we have is that this is a government that talks a lot about caring about the environment, its members say lots of things about how they care about the environment, but the actual translation of that into measurable, quantifiable improvements to the environment is really almost zero. I am going to talk a little about that.

Let us talk about the carbon tax. It was brought in with enormous fanfare by the Prime Minister and his Minister of Environment, saying it was going to be the cure for reducing carbon emissions across the country. I will skip to the end of the story where, in fact, we find that carbon emissions have not gone down. They have gone up every single year under this Liberal government. I will say it again, because it is worth repeating. Carbon emissions have gone up every single year under this Liberal government, which claims to be the big defender of the environment: “We're going to solve climate change, because we brought in a carbon tax.” In fact, it is an absolute failure.

Someone who is paying attention on the other side, or who has done some of their research, will say, no, carbon emissions went down in 2020 and things are going great. It is true that carbon emissions did go down in 2020 by 5.8%. However, it is now 2022, and some people will forget but that was at the peak of the pandemic. The economy contracted by 9% during that time. My statement is that, if this is actually the Liberals' plan to reduce carbon emissions, then just be honest with Canadians and tell us that it is their plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5% and reduce—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not sure if the member has read the notes, but the bill before us is not about the carbon tax. Bill S-5 is about dealing with toxic chemicals, which apparently the Conservatives are very supportive of, but it has nothing to do with the carbon tax.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the intervention. I will remind everyone to try to stay relevant to the bill we are debating.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some members do not like hearing the truth and want to interrupt other members when they are speaking.

Going back to my point, I was talking about the fact that the current government has such a terrible record on the environment. That is because there are a number of promises in this bill that the government says it is going to do, which I say it will not do because it has a track record to show that it does not do the things it says it is going to do. I hope that will satisfy the member who chose to interrupt.

If that is the plan, for the Canadian economy to reach its carbon tax emissions it is going to have to contract by 45%, because a 5% carbon reduction is a 9% reduction in GDP. If that is the Liberals' plan, they should tell us about it.

The other part is that the government is supposed to put more money back into the pockets of Canadians. Of course, it does not. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been abundantly clear that it does not put more money back into the pockets of Canadians. If we do the hard work, like the hard math, and I know the current government does not like to do the hard work and the hard math, and we factor in the cost of the carbon tax throughout the entire Canadian economy, it ends up costing Canadians more money than they get back from the paltry cheques the government sends them every so often. The worst part is it detrimentally and adversely affects people in rural communities, like in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, where people have no choice but to commute long distances to work and put gas in their cars. They heat their homes with propane because that is the only option they have. Those paltry rebate cheques absolutely do not even come close to covering the cost of the carbon tax they are paying.

The Senate passed 24 amendments to this bill and I will say that 11 of them are of great concern. We have yet to hear what the government thinks of those 11 amendments, which I will come back to later in my speech.

I still want to flesh out why I think there are so many problems with this legislation and the fact that the current government will not live up to the promises in it with respect to the right to a healthy environment. I am going to touch on that.

We are also going to talk about the fact that the government put in this bill that anyone can have a substance assessed. Under the current government, we cannot get a passport. It has lost track of 500 criminals, who were subject to deportation, and does not know where they are. However, it is going to have the capacity to somehow deal with the hundreds of thousands of requests that are going to flood into the department to have a substance assessed, because the legislation is very clear that anyone can ask for such an assessment. It is inconceivable that the current government would think that is a good thing to include in this piece of legislation.

I will talk about why I do not think the government is going to be able to implement half of the things it put in this bill. The commissioner of the environment did about 10 reports on the progress of the Liberal government with respect to the environment. Guess what. Virtually all of them got a failing grade.

Let us talk about a just transition for coal workers. The environment commissioner was very clear that there was no just transition for coal workers. In fact, they were left out in the cold. Therefore, when we hear the government saying that everyone is going to enjoy a right to a healthy environment, I have enormous skepticism that it is actually going to do that. It did not help coal workers. It talks about a just transition all the time. The government says it is going to provide a just transition for any energy worker who is displaced by any of its punitive pieces of legislation, whether it is the no-development bill, the carbon tax or anything else. The government claims it will be there for anyone who is displaced. Do members know who the first people were who were displaced? It was coal workers. Where was the government? Absolutely nowhere. The commissioner was clear. The government left coal workers with virtually nothing, but it is going to enact a right to a healthy environment and therefore all Canadians are going to enjoy this right. I do not think it is going to deliver that, because it does not ever deliver anything that matters with respect to the environment.

The other thing the Liberal government has put in this bill is that plastic-manufactured items are now in schedule 1. When the current government was first elected it said there would be no more Ottawa knows best and no more telling the provinces what to do, but that it would be this wonderful government that rules by consensus. Guess what. The provinces are now suing the federal government as a result of plastics being placed in the new schedule 1 of this legislation.

It is hard to talk about how many times the Liberals say they are going to do something and then actually do nothing or do the opposite. We could talk about freedom of information and this being a government that is going to be open and transparent by default, but the system is absolutely a mess as a result of what? The Liberal government. Again, it says it is going to do something, but it does not do anything or it does the opposite.

Let us talk about this vaunted right to a healthy environment. First of all, it is in the preamble, and when something is put in the preamble it actually has different legal weight from something that is actually in a section in a statute. Again, the Liberals snuck it into the preamble to virtue signal and say to people they care so much about a healthy environment that they are going to put it in the bill, except they did not put it in the bill. They put it in the preamble, which has different legal impact than putting it in the statute itself.

There we go. Number one is that they are not delivering yet again. It is in the preamble and not in the actual statute.

What is worse about it is that there were five years of consultation for the Liberals to come up with this piece of legislation. If all of this was so important, why did it take five years? I have no explanation. This is a government that finds it very difficult to walk and chew gum at the same time. Its members cannot do more than one thing at once. They sort of stumble from one crisis to another.

There were five years to consult to draft this piece of legislation. Now the Liberals say the right to a healthy environment is really important and they will enshrine it in legislation, but they stuck it in the preamble and now say they need a further two years to figure out what it means. This is a government that is not moving slowly. This is a government that is moving basically in reverse, when Canadians do actually deserve these things.

It speaks to the absolute incompetence of the government. It cares so much about the right to a healthy environment that it is going to consult on it for five years, then because it realizes it probably needs to get some legislation put forward, it is just going to say it will consult for another two years. Who knows what that is going to turn out to be? The Liberals have not given any suggestions on what that is going to be. They have not talked about what that consultation would entail, who would be consulted or where those consultations would take place. These are things the Liberals say they are going to do, but I have very little faith in their actually doing them.

They said there were going to be extensive consultations on plastic bans. When we talked to a lot of industry stakeholders, they were not consulted at all, so I am not necessarily sure that what the Liberals say about consultation is actually going to come to fruition.

This is what we talk about when the Liberals say in the legislation anyone can have a substance assessed. Let us think about that for a minute. That is not narrowly defined. It is as inclusive as it can be; it is anyone. Any Canadian, if this bill passes, can go forward and ask for a substance to be assessed. That is going to create a deluge of requests for assessments from environmental groups, from concerned citizens and from others.

That would mean the department, which is already busy enough with what it has to do, would become overwhelmed, and when departments become overwhelmed under this government, which is something that happens literally every other day, we cannot get a passport. We have all been through that. There were a number of constituents who got in touch with my office who said they could not get a passport and asked if we could please help. I said to them that I tried to get my son's and daughter's passports renewed for our vacation, and I could not, so our vacation was cancelled. This is how effective the government is on managing something as simple as issuing a passport.

I know I heard the minister one day in question period saying they had no idea how to anticipate the influx of applications. It is very complicated. Passports expire on five-year or 10-year increments. The math is very hard, like 2022 to 2027 or 2032. I know complex, difficult math equations are something the government has incredible challenges with. When we look at the ability for anyone to assess a substance, how are the Liberals going to handle it?

The minister has not talked about it. None of the members opposite have talked about it in their speeches. It is like they have not contemplated how difficult that could be. We know they have not, because they did not contemplate how difficult it would be to issue a passport. The Liberals clearly did not contemplate how difficult it would be to keep track of 500 criminals who faced deportation orders. They are all gone. What is the explanation from the government? We have no explanation. I think maybe it is, “Oops.” That is where the government is on that.

We support referring this piece of legislation to committee to be studied, but we have grave concerns about it, concerns that I am going to continue to express today. It is so easy to say one is going to do things. The government says it is going to do all kinds of things. The difficulty comes when it actually tries to implement the things it says. That is the hard part. There is an old Seinfeld episode in which Jerry Seinfeld is trying to rent a car, and the car is not there. He said that anyone could just take, take, take reservations; it was holding the reservation that was the difficult part.

The Liberal government can make all kinds of environmental announcements, saying it is going to do this or that, that it is going to solve climate change or reduce carbon emissions and that it is going to have a just transition for coal workers. That is the easy part. The hard part is actually doing it. That is the part the government is really not very good at.

That is what I am deeply concerned about with respect to this piece of legislation, both with the right to a healthy environment with respect to anyone being able to assess a substance, and with the fact that plastic manufactured items have been placed on schedule 1.

What is that going to lead to? This is being talked about. This is a government that likes to demonize plastics. It is in all the government's things. The Prime Minister famously did a press conference where he talked about the drink box, water bottle kind of thing that he wanted to eliminate.

Plastics are critical in our lives. We could look at the medical field. If we are going to be looking at further regulations of plastics, what is that going to mean if we go in for an operation? Lots of surgical instruments use plastics. Are we going to end up getting IVs made with wood, because we are against plastics? It is the virtue signalling that we are going to do something, again without doing the hard work of thinking it through and deciding what is actually the best course of action.

Virtue signalling is something the government does so often, it is difficult to keep up with. It continues to talk about its record on the environment, and again I am going to go back to the fact that it is so poor that it leads me to think that the government is not going to implement what is in this particular piece of legislation. It keeps talking about an energy transition. That is what it wants to do. That is the government's big thing, that we have to get off fossil fuels.

Let us talk a little about that, this sort of woke energy environmentalism. Germany spent a couple of hundred million dollars on trying to get carbon out of its electricity grid. Over the past 20 years, it has been doing that, and it has spent hundreds of billions of dollars. This is the path the Liberal government wants us to go down. It does not want to learn from somebody else's mistakes. After hundreds of billions of dollars, Germany has taken its dependence on hydrocarbons for electricity from 84% to 78%.

I am not an investment person, but I can tell members that is not a good return on investment. The average per kilowatt hour cost of electricity in Germany is 45¢, and here in Ontario it is 13¢. Imagine spending hundreds of billions of dollars, barely moving the needle and paying some of the highest electricity rates in the world. That is the result of those kinds of policies. That is the same policy road that the Liberal government wants us to take a trip down with respect to electricity generation in this country.

Again, this brings me back to why we have such an incredible challenge with this bill.

There are 24 amendments that were passed in the Senate, and, yes, there is supposedly an Independent Senators Group, but they are all appointed by the Prime Minister, so these are members of the Senate who are beholden to the Prime Minister, to a certain extent.

Is that what the government's plan is for this piece of legislation? We on this side and, I am sure, all the other opposition parties would like to know that. Does it support all these amendments?

They changed the definition of “right to a healthy environment” at the Senate. That is a significant change. Is the government supporting that amendment? We would like to know.

They made changes to “living organisms”. They made a big change with respect to the precautionary principle. I am very happy that Bill S-5 preserves the precautionary principle, but they removed “cost” from “cost-effective”. That is a very important balancing point with respect to the precautionary principle.

What is the government's position on having done that? Is it going to change that at committee? Is it going to work with the opposition to do that? We do not know.

It has been wonderful to discuss this bill and discuss Liberal failures on the environment and how I think they are going to translate into Bill S-5. I hope the government will take some of these criticisms of the bill seriously, with respect to the right to a healthy environment, with respect to the precautionary principle and, of course, with respect to how anyone can have a substance assessed.

I hope it will take these requests to amend seriously and that it will do the work in committee to make these changes so this bill can be supported at third reading.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dufferin—Caledon shared many different comments. He definitely spoke on a range of different things. What I find fascinating is that in the last campaign, the member and his colleagues in the Conservative Party ran on a platform that actually included two carbon taxes. In addition to the price on pollution, the carbon tax, as he refers to it, the Conservative platform also planned to bury a second price on carbon in fuel regulations.

It is fascinating that they oppose these policies in the House, because when they were running and they were speaking to Canadians, their platform said otherwise. That is why we have said, time and time again, that the Conservatives like to flip-flop.

The Conservatives also like to mislead, which is unfortunate. The member refers to the environment a lot. He says that he cares about the environment, yet rather than talk about what the government is doing, would the member like to let us know if he actually believes in climate change, and what a Conservative environment policy would look like, since it is important that we protect our environment?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the member campaigned on not raising the carbon tax above $50 a tonne, and now it is going to go up to $170 a tonne. I find the question a little rich.

First of all, what people campaigned on in a previous election has nothing to do with Bill S-5. I will say this, though: I am against the Liberals' carbon tax. We have always been against it.

It does not do anything. I could go on and on about it. Carbon emissions have gone up every single year under the Liberal government, every single year, except the pandemic year, when they liked to say that things were working but then they did not want to talk about the contraction to the environment.

The PBO has made it clear: It does not put more money back into the pockets of Canadians. By any measurable metric, their version of the carbon tax is an unmitigated failure. We are against it. We will always be against it. We will scrap that carbon tax once we form government under the leadership of our new Conservative leader, which we look forward to.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon refreshing when he speaks on these issues.

Liberal hypocrisy seems to be front and centre on Bill S-5. This is from the same government that starts talking about the need to fast-track certain projects, like LNG. It is talking about lithium without actually talking about the fact that our regulatory system is broken and without talking about the fact that one would need so much water. By the same token, where would it get the water and where would it source this lithium from?

The government talks about a so-called “right to a healthy environment”, when it is really a socio-economic factor that an official will take into account during a CEPA regulatory application. Again, when it comes to the government's hypocrisy on these issues in this bill, what does the member have to say about this?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot ask for a better question than one about Liberal hypocrisy.

When we talk about the environment, the government will not approve projects in Canada, let us say a project with lithium, so that project goes on and gets done somewhere else in the world, because the world needs lithium. It goes to a country that has carbon emissions that are 10 to 15 times higher than what would happen if the project were done in Canada. It is generally a country that has lower environmental standards on all other measures of the environment. These countries have terrible human rights records and terrible employment standards for their employees. The government says it has cleaned up its balance sheet, but the global balance sheet on all those metrics gets so much worse.

There is no carbon dome over Canada. When we export our carbon emissions to other countries, along with the jobs and the tax revenue, all we do is make the world a much worse place on all those things we talked about. This is the same kind of thinking that the Liberals bring forward with the right to a healthy environment, which they do not define and no one knows what it is, and with respect to the fact that anyone can assess a substance. All these things are absolutely nonsensical.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments. First and foremost, I know there was mention made of a broken regulatory system. That system was broken because the previous government, prior to 2015, absolutely gutted that system and broke all trust in it. That is why that system was broken. That is number one.

Number two, the member talked about the government's credibility with respect to a price on pollution. I am always confused when I look across the aisle. They were for it. They were against it. They ran on it. Now, all of a sudden, they want to scrap it. I am just wondering, if our system is so bad, whether the member opposite could name for me a couple of initiatives that his government would take to reduce carbon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my position to postulate on what our campaign election promises might look like coming up in the next election. I am not the leader of the party.

However, I will say this. The unequivocal fact is that the Liberals' carbon tax is an abysmal failure. We are against it. We have been very clear and unequivocal about that. It does not reduce emissions, and it does not put more money in the pockets of Canadians.

I am going to talk again about my riding in Dufferin—Caledon. I have people who commute an hour to an hour and a half every single day to get to work. These are people who are not rich. The carbon tax is punishing them every single day they fill up their tanks with gas. When they heat their homes with propane, they are punished again, and the government does not care, because people in rural communities do not vote for the current government.

The carbon tax is punitive. It is designed for the person who lives in a downtown urban centre, who can take transit and buy their energy from Bullfrog Power or some other company that provides allegedly green electricity. Everybody else, including all the people in my riding, is absolutely punished by the carbon tax. I am against it. Everyone in this party is against it, and we are going to scrap it when we form government.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I would disagree with the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, and so would some members of his caucus, who favour carbon pricing.

I want to correct the record, because, I am sure unintentionally, he has misstated the progress Germany has made in reducing greenhouse gases. He used the claim that 70% of Germany's electricity was still coming from fossil fuels. It is too high, but it is 30%. Renewables represent 50% of Germany's electricity grid. The result is that, yes, it is true, Germans pay very high prices for energy, but they have reduced greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels, while Canada is 20% above 1990 levels. Therefore, we should have another look at Germany's path.

I want to expand on something the hon. member talked about, which is the capacity of Environment Canada to meet the challenges under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in Bill S-5. There was an observations paper that was attached to the amendment from the Senate. I would ask whether the member for Dufferin—Caledon noted that in that observation paper the Senate asks whether the government will expand resources to Environment Canada to be able to fulfill the act's promise.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to disagree with my colleague. Where I am getting my facts from is an interview with Vaclav Smil, who is one of the preeminent thinkers on energy transitions. Vaclav Smil wrote an article a few weeks ago in the Los Angeles Times, citing exactly the study just used in my speech. I would suggest the member's statistics are wrong about Germany's energy transition.

Whether the government decides to hire more people within the Department of the Environment, it is not going to matter, because it has proven that it cannot function with the staffing levels it has. The Liberals have massively increased staffing levels across the Canadian government. Huge amounts more in resources are being donated. With a 12% increase in the number of employees across the Government of Canada, people still cannot get a passport and the government cannot keep track of those 500 people subject to deportation orders. I could go on and on about the failings of the government. More money is not the answer for the government. We need a new government that can run departments efficiently.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech, he went over the defects in the retail carbon tax. He also reminded the House and the public of every single target the government has missed on the environment. He made us see back to better days during the Harper years, so I would like the member to elaborate further on that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have an interesting fact: The only government, outside of a pandemic, where carbon emissions have gone down was under Stephen Harper. That is the first time. It took a pandemic that savaged our economy by 9%, a 9% contraction in GDP, for the Liberals to get a 5.8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I think that is their secret plan. They are just sort of whispering it to themselves. That is how they are going to lower emissions, by savaging the Canadian economy.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say happy Bandi Chhor Divas and happy Diwali as well.

I have sat through the Bill S-5 debate, which has been riveting. I think the pages are wide awake, maybe not so much after my time.

Bill S-5 deals with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 is the first major update since 1999.

We agree that this outdated act needs to be updated, but we have some concerns. Throughout the course of my 20 minutes, I will speak to that. First off, it is hard for us to take lessons from a government that has failed at every step of the way in the last seven years. It has promised a lot and talk a big game, yet it has failed every step of the way. Earlier on, I mentioned that the government likes to fly the flag and say that it is here for reconciliation and that it is the environmental steward of our economy and our country, yet it is still approving billions upon billions of litres of raw sewage being dumped into our waterways right across the country.

I do not need to remind the House, although I will, that this is also a government that has waged war on our natural resource sector from day one. The Prime Minister apologized. He said that under his tenure Canada would be known more for its resourcefulness than its natural resources. That is not true. He has absolutely waged war.

I will remind the House that it was the government that brought in the no more pipelines bill, Bill C-69, which absolutely punishes Canadian producers. The government has waged war. It has sided with these third-party groups that helped the Liberals get elected in 2015. I will remind the House of that. Over 105 different organizations waged war against the Conservatives and sided with the Liberal Party to get it into power, and now it is paying them back. These organizations have infiltrated even the highest offices of the PMO.

Bill C-68 was an act to amend the Fisheries Act. I debated and studied that. I stood in the House and talked about it for hours on end. That is the act to amend the Fisheries Act where we looked at the harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitats, which we showed and proved. Not one government scientist or biologist could prove that any of the changes that were done by the previous government resulted in or had harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitats.

Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, is another one where the government waged war on our natural resources and energy sector. It essentially said that any tankers coming to the west coast to get Canadian products would be banned, yet American or other foreign vessels could come. Nothing similar was done on the east coast, where hundreds and hundreds of tankers each week are bringing in foreign dirty oil into our country.

I know that we have just a short time before we get into a riveting session of question period. I am excited about that, too. I know the gallery is, and so are my colleagues. We have a lot of concerns about this, notwithstanding the 24 amendments that were passed, 11 of which I will get into when I have more time after question period.

The government talks a good game on climate change, yet it has failed to reach any of its targets in the seven years since it was elected. It really has no plan. It was the member for Timmins—James Bay who mentioned this. My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands said she has many concerns about what is in this bill and that amendments need to be addressed.

However, we have heard the government say over the last seven years to just trust it and that it will deal with it in committee, yet it failed to do that. Trust is earned; it is not just given. Time and again, the government continues to burn that trust and any goodwill with not only the opposition, but also Canadians.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I should apologize to the folks in the gallery, because this is probably not the day to come and listen to a debate. Bill S-5, as riveting as we try to make it, probably does not have the most riveting debate.

I just will recap, as I was cut short prior to question period, some of the concerns we have with Bill S-5. I will say that the Conservatives are going to support sending Bill S-5 to committee, but there are some concerns. The number one concern we have is trusting that the government is going to do what it says it is going to do, because as we know and have seen for the last seven years, it has failed on a number of its promises and has not delivered on a number of its promises.

The carbon tax has done nothing but make things more unaffordable for Canadians. It has done nothing to cut emissions. As a matter of fact, emissions have gone up every year with the imposition of the carbon tax. The Liberals have waged war on our natural resource industry and energy sector.

There is no doubt that I live in an area ravaged by wildfires, drought and flooding. We have to take concrete action on climate change, and what the government has done is stand up and say all the right things. However, it has literally done nothing. I introduced into the record some bills that have waged war on our natural resource sector and energy sector, making it more difficult for them to compete on the world stage. As a matter of fact, the Liberals have landlocked Canadian resources in many ways and have failed to secure a softwood lumber agreement. They like to say it was all due to the previous government, yet every time something happens, they fail to take responsibility.

The Liberals are in government, and I will perhaps pre-empt our colleagues across the way as to some of the questions they are going to ask. They are going to ask where the Conservatives' plan is for climate change. They are in government at this time, and they have had seven years to come up with a plan, yet they have failed to do so.

Bill S-5 deals with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 would be the first major update since 1999. It recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and requires the Government of Canada to protect this right, which I do not think anyone on this side would disagree with. What we do disagree with is that it is going to take the Liberals another two years to figure out what that means. What does it mean for every Canadian to have the right to a healthy environment? Now they are going to study it for another two more years.

One thing that is always challenging with the government is that it tells us and Canadians, “Just trust us. We'll get it done.” We should just trust, when we send a bill to committee, that it will consider the amendments and flesh out all the details in parliamentary committees. However, we have seen time and time again that the government fails to take up any of the considerations the opposition gives.

I am in the health committee right now. As a matter of fact, we start in 10 minutes. We are studying Bill C-31, a bill that has been rammed down our throats, although I think it is well intentioned. It is the rental and dental bill, and I will remind Canadians that we have essentially been given by the government and its costly coalition with the NDP two hours to study this piece of legislation and question the ministers. It is predicted that up to $10 billion is going to be spent on it, so there are just two hours of study on a piece of legislation that is very important.

I know members are going ask what I have against our most marginalized communities. I live in an area and jurisdiction where rent is very, very expensive. I am not disagreeing that the amount of money they are going to give, which I think is $600 or $500, will help for perhaps a week of rent in our neck of the woods, but what happens to Canadians who are struggling the rest of the time?

The Liberals come out with these schemes, and all we are saying is, “Show us a plan.” They have had seven years to deliver on plans, and I will remind them again that when we are talking about environmental protection, the government, after seven years, still continues to approve dumping billion upon billions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways. In 2017 alone, an estimated 167 billion litres were pumped into the waterways. Just this April, Quebec had a massive issue in Quebec City, I believe, where over two days in April, 21 million litres of sewage were dumped into the St. Lawrence River every hour. Again, every hour, 21 million litres of raw sewage were dumped.

Bill S-5 also deals with, and muddies the water a bit on, provincial jurisdiction. Again, the government, as we have seen over the last seven years, likes to ram things through. It is ham-fisted in its approach to legislation.

We know that Bill S-5 takes aim at the plastics industry and now lists plastic in schedule 1. While the Liberals have taken the word “toxic” out, substances that are regulated are still referred to as toxic. The plastics industry has some concerns with that.

When I talk about plastics, I will be the first to admit that when I was on the fisheries file, I was staggered when I saw the amount of plastic waste in our oceans. At any given time, there are about 5.25 trillion macroplastic and microplastic pieces floating in our oceans. Yes, we have to do things to combat that and have to be smart about that. There is no disagreeing with that. However, let us remember some of the important parts of society that plastics and the plastic industry contribute to.

In the health care field, plastics have been widely used to create medical tools and devices, such as surgical gloves, syringes, insulin pens, IV tubes, catheters and inflatable splints. These products are created for one-time use and help prevent the spread of dangerous diseases by eliminating the need to sterilize and reuse a device.

There is enhanced safety. The durable nature of plastics allows for its application in the creation of medical safety devices, such as tamper-proof caps on medical packaging, blister packs and various medical waste disposable bags.

Regarding increased comfort, previously, the health care industry used metal or metallic medical devices, especially in the field of prosthetics. I have a prosthetic in my knee right now that I am dealing with, which is something I am very well aware of. Owing to the durability and versatility of plastic, it is now used as a replacement for such medical components.

Regarding innovative applications, since plastic can be moulded per the requirement of a specific application, it has also been used to develop new medical devices. Also, the cost effectiveness of plastic means that it can not only be mass-produced at a cost-effective rate, but allows for a wider range of applications, making it a worthwhile investment.

Regarding the benefits of plastic, while I am not up here defending the plastics industry by any means, given what I said earlier in my speech about plastic waste and the microplastics that find their way into our oceans and waterways, there are benefits and advantages of plastics in terms of greening our industry and cost effectiveness.

An EU study, which I have in front of me, says that 22% of an Airbus A380 double-decker aircraft is built with lightweight carbon fibre-reinforced plastics. That saves fuel and lowers operating costs by 15%. It also lowers the emissions of that aircraft.

About 105 kilograms of plastics, rather than the traditional materials in a car weighing 1,000 kilograms, make possible fuel savings of 750 litres over a lifespan of 90,000 miles. This reduces oil consumption by 12 million tonnes and, consequently, CO2 emissions by 30 million tonnes in the European Union alone.

If we look at renewable energies and the use of plastics there, we know that pipes, solar panels, wind turbines and rotors all use plastic and petroleum components in them as well. When we look at cutting our greenhouse gases and making sure our homes are greener and more efficient, double-glazed windows are essential for energy-efficient homes. They have a minimum of 35 years of life and are easily maintained.

There are a number of things we can all agree on. The things that we disagree on and have concerns about are the 24 amendments the Independent Senators Group, which we know is not so independent as it is appointed by the Prime Minister and the government, brought forward.

It is challenging for us to trust what the Liberal government is going to say. I have been here for seven years. This is my seventh anniversary of being an elected member of Parliament, and I came here not so jaded. I have good friends on the other side, and I will say that there are good people on all sides of the House who come to Ottawa with the best intentions. However, sadly, what we just saw for the vote on the Conservative opposition day motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn is that only one Liberal member of Parliament voted in favour of it. He stood up for his constituents.

I will remind people that this is about the government tripling its carbon tax and making things more costly for those who live in rural and remote areas and depend on heating oil and propane to heat their homes. Canada is the only G7 country to have raised fuel taxes during the period of record-high global fuel prices, and energy analysts have predicted that Canadians could see their home heating bills rise by 50% to 100%, on average, this winter.

When this was brought up in question period, the parliamentary secretaries and the Minister of Environment stood and asked what the Conservatives have against the carbon tax, especially when the good folks on the east coast have just gone through such a horrendous natural disaster with the hurricane that took place, the 100-year storm. I heard one of my Liberal friends say there were 100-foot waves. It is unbelievable. The pictures and images are just incredible, yet the Liberals are not concerned about the cost of living, which has become unattainable for those living in rural and remote areas. Things are getting harder and harder, and even Liberal premiers are appealing to the government to do whatever it can to cancel its planned carbon tax hike and make things more affordable.

I will remind Canadians that on January 1, they are also going to wake up to a payroll tax, with more money being taken away by the Liberal government. All it has done is make things harder and harder. The Conservatives will agree to pass Bill S-5 to get it to committee, but we have some serious concerns.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was trying to square some of the comments in the hon. member's speech, particularly the one around us not doing anything for climate change but ramming things down people's throats. I was thinking of what we have done on climate change with the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change that we introduced and the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act that we introduced. I was on the environment committee when it worked on that and am still on the environment committee, where we will be studying this bill if it gets directed to us.

Climate change and health vulnerability are brought together in a Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health report that the committee just received. It looks at the assessment of human health impacts of climate change. It is important that Bill S-5, as the member has mentioned, makes a bridge between human health and the right to a healthy environment and the other programs we have introduced around climate change.

Could the hon. member expand on that, please?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, the concern we have is that it says every Canadian has a right to a healthy environment, but the Canadian government needs another two years to study that. What does that mean?

Our riding has gone through some horrific wildfire seasons, as well as drought and flooding. We have had the whole gamut of the climate change issues facing Canadians, and really facing people from coast to coast to coast. I have seen how it impacts Canadians mentally, physically and financially. We have to make sure we are doing things for the best interests of Canadians. We have to make sure that we can deliver on a plan. The government has never put forth a plan, and it is failing to do so again.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill S‑5 contains a number of clauses, and I would like my colleague to comment on one of them, section 99. What this does is expand provisions requiring those who manufacture, process, sell at the retail level, import or distribute a substance or a product containing a substance to inform the public of any risk the product poses to the environment or human life or health. Basically, people must be informed of any danger.

Conservatives often talk about “green oil and gas”. Is green oil and gas less harmful to the environment and human life and health than conventional oil?

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to apologize to my hon. colleague across the way. I do not know whether it was the translation, but I did not hear all of his question.

I am not the expert on Bill S-5. I do know that we have some serious concerns with it. As we move forward, it is incumbent on all of us to make sure we are working collaboratively with our friends across the way to whatever extent they are willing to do so. They say they are willing to listen to amendments. I do not know whether my friend is part of the environment committee, but I hope that he brings that question to committee when it is discussing this further.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, we can have a lot of debate about the motion the Conservatives put forward. Of course, we put forward an amendment to change it to “GST”, which we would have supported, and they chose not to. The member is from B.C., and he knows how much more meaningful that would have been for people in our communities.

Just to come back to the bill, we know that nine out of 10 Canadians are finding chemicals in their blood or urine, which are having huge impacts on their health. I wonder if the member agrees that we need to amend the bill to include mandatory labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products, a provision that would stop companies from hiding from the public which toxic substances are in the products people purchase.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, my understanding of this bill is that it would put into place a provision that anybody could bring forth a concern about a toxic substance and an assessment on that substance would be developed within 24 months to determine whether that substance is toxic.

While I am not familiar with the statistics the member rambled off, that is the challenge of using facts and figures with that. Perhaps not everyone who is in the debate has access to those same statistics to debate it or discuss it. However, it is concerning. I believe she said that nine out of 10 Canadians are finding toxic substances within their blood or urine. That is something that needs to be studied at committee and discussed at that time.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, for my hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, it is such a joy to hear such a thoughtful speech that really looked at Bill S-5 and what is wrong with it. I totally agree with the member that it is not adequate for the government to promise us a right to a healthy environment and then tell us it will take two years to figure out what that is. Let us hope we fix that.

With respect to the question on plastics, I want to put to the member that, in order to regulate plastics at all, the government is using the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and I believe it is using it appropriately. The concept of CEPA toxic has been used for years, which is not the common-sense meaning of toxic.

When the government uses the power it derives through CEPA, it uses it in an overly restricted way, so it is only prepared right now to not really deal with the threat of ocean plastics. It is in very limited circumstances, and certainly not ever getting into the hospital use of single-use plastics. Looking at forks and straws is as far as it has gone. I offer that to the member as a comment to see if that gives him any reassurance.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, this bill also puts in place the precautionary principle. It is one I have seen, and I am very well aware of it in other pieces of legislation we have studied. It gives the power to the minister of that file to take extraordinary measures when he or she deems it necessary.

We always want to make sure we are putting the right tools in place. What we have seen using the precautionary principle in the fisheries file is that decisions were made to limit fishing in certain areas without consultation with local stakeholders, those who would be impacted the most, so there is a concern with respect to that. However, I take what our hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands has said. She is always one who has thoughtful representation, and I appreciate it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the wildfires in his area and the weather events that happened on the east coast. I am genuinely unsure where the Conservative Party is when we talk about that being a result of climate change. I wonder if the member could share with the House if he believes that climate change is real and that those events are a product of climate change.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague across the way knows where I stand on that question. As a matter of fact, I said it in my speech. We are dealing with extraordinary events due to climate change, such as the wildfires we saw in our neck of the woods and the floods we have seen. We had incredible weather storms, the tsunamis, the flooding we saw in the lower mainland and the hurricane we saw on the east coast.

The fact of the matter is that our climate has been changing, and we have to adapt as we move forward. We have to have a real plan. A carbon tax is not a plan to combat climate change. That is what we are saying on this side. What is the plan for the government to combat climate change?

It always wants to push that back and ask us what our plan is. We would like to remind the Liberals that they have been in government for seven years, and they have failed every step of the way to meet any targets they have set. They have failed to do the things they have promised Canadians.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I am pleased to rise to speak today on Senate Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. This is the first major reform of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act since 1999. Obviously, modernizing it was long overdue.

Bill S-5 proposes some major additions, some of which may go beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. In order to understand this bill, it is important to remember that parliamentarians have spoken out on several occasions on the subject, and that there are clear expectations about what should be included in this bill. That said, the government reiterated its desire to strengthen this legislation, and the minister decided to ask the Senate to sponsor it, which is a sign of good intentions.

What can we expect from a government on the environment?

In Quebec, for example, the government is working to apply environmental protection laws and regulations; reduce water, air and soil contamination; protect biodiversity and save species and habitats; assess industrial projects and manage residual materials; and much more. We can see that Quebec knows how to defend its environmental interests and that it does not need Canada’s help to promote and protect Quebeckers’ fundamental rights.

What should we expect from citizens, such as business people, when it comes to the environment? We must encourage citizens and business people to actively participate in the development of a healthier environment. Citizens can take smaller steps on a daily basis to reduce their environmental footprint by recycling and consuming as few polluting and toxic products as possible. Business people can take bigger steps. I am thinking in particular of building owners. All too often, building owners do not want to invest to make their properties more energy efficient, although there are effective solutions out there.

Consider Dany Bonapace, a citizen in my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Last year, for example, he told the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that we could use artificial intelligence technology to manage energy needs, develop systems to reduce energy consumption and optimize the use of the energy produced. We can implement solutions to reduce our energy consumption and produce renewable energies such as wind and solar power. Buildings can store energy in batteries and take part in energy sharing infrastructure networks. Digital technologies offer numerous possibilities.

The federal government could set an example by accelerating the work to make its buildings more energy efficient. It could also introduce penalties to the subsidies given to companies whose buildings are not energy efficient. We also need to use renewable energies to ensure we run mining and forestry operations in an environmentally responsible way. Mining and forestry companies must themselves begin to produce renewable energy.

These are some of the actions that citizens, business people and industries are already proposing in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

What about Bill S-5? More specifically, what are some of its objectives, and how will they affect Quebec? One of its major objectives is to establish the right to a healthy environment. We are not fooled by the Liberal government’s claim that the modernization of the act creates the “right to a healthy environment”, a partisan claim that is not worth much.

If the government were serious and politically bold, it would propose a round of constitutional negotiations with the federation’s partners in order to add this right to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms already establishes that a person can seek an injunction to ensure that their right to live in a healthful environment is respected. It is therefore clear that the federal government could learn from Quebec and that Quebecers do not need the federal government to guarantee them a healthy environment.

However, there are opportunities for co-operation in Bill S-5, in particular concerning a regulatory framework for dealing with toxic substances. For example, the Bloc Québécois would like to collaborate with all members of Parliament on the management of chemicals and toxic substances, assessments of the cumulative effects of toxic substances, particularly among vulnerable populations, and mandatory labelling requirements.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that I asked the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology to conduct a study on the recycling industry. This will make it possible to propose solutions and make recommendations that we can then debate in the House.

It is important to remember that Bill S-5 reflects the recommendations of health and environment groups as closely as possible.

There is also the whole issue of transparency. To be able to collaborate with health and environment groups, we absolutely need more transparency. Information must be more accessible and more widely publicized. There must also be significant public participation in the assessment of industrial projects, because that will help significantly reduce the level of skepticism toward businesses and governments. Moreover, we continue to demand that first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples be part of the process from the outset.

Although the Bloc Québécois supports it, the bill should not be an excuse for the federal government to impose environmental requirements on Quebec. Quebec has often said that it opposed any federal action in environmental issues on its territory, and it is important to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction in environmental matters. As I said earlier, Quebec is a leader in environmental protection, and its commitment to renewable energies, its conservation efforts and the quality of its environmental regulations are exemplary. For these reasons, we are prepared to share the Quebec government's knowledge and strengths with the federal government in order to achieve the universal objective of environmental protection.

I will also propose two actions that could also enhance an environmental bill. When she spoke before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Laure Waridel suggested that we focus on environmental taxation. We could include such measures in legislation aimed at ensuring a healthy environment. We are talking about internalizing the environmental and social costs of products and services by applying the polluter pay principle, for example.

Representatives of Enerkem also appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology as part of its study of the green recovery, and spoke about the waste management sector, which has developed advanced recycling technology, advanced biofuels, and renewable chemicals produced from biomass and non-recyclable residual materials.

All of these new technologies require considerable research and development, as well as private and public capital investments. There will need to be an international strategy to foster the development of innovative waste management solutions.

According to what Mr. Chornet told us, Europe and the United States have implemented regulations fostering the use of second-generation biofuels, or green chemicals. As a result, it is more profitable for Enerkem to sell products in California and Europe, since regulations there encourage businesses to opt for green chemistry. Mr. Chornet believes Canada needs to establish the necessary conditions to encourage project implementation and biofuel consumption in order to benefit from the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with green chemistry. Those are just some examples.

In conclusion, environmental protection transcends borders. It is a global phenomenon that all of us need to address. Bill S‑5 will help Quebec reach the environmental targets it has already set, but there needs to be collaboration with the federal government. That is why I and my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. It is always interesting to hear our colleagues from Quebec share Quebec's vision. Quebec has long been a leader in the fight against climate change and environmental conservation.

In my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, as well as in the neighbouring riding, the protection of endangered species is a very important issue. Five or six years ago, the federal government was asked to intervene to protect an endangered species, the tiny chorus frog.

Does my colleague think it is important for the federal government to be able to intervene like this from time to time?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague of the supremacy of the provinces', and therefore Quebec's, environmental legislation.

This being said, there is something I always find somewhat bizarre in certain fundamental environmental debates. I am thinking in particular about Gazoduq's GNL Quebec project. In Quebec, the general public, the media and members of Parliament were more concerned about the possible impact on the fjord's whales than the possible impact on people's health.

I think we need to think about this and make human health a priority when we undertake environmental or industrial projects.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member mentioned that, in his opinion, the provinces have priority when the matter affects their territory directly. It is important to understand that, on this side of the House, we respect provincial jurisdiction.

Last week, the Minister of the Environment severely condemned a project that is 100% under provincial jurisdiction. He even said that he was going to conduct an investigation, when there are already environmental investigations under way. This involves the third link.

The official opposition severely condemned the Liberal minister's remarks, saying that it was a bad habit among Liberals to meddle in affairs that do not concern them and to lecture the provinces, suggesting that the people in Ottawa are better informed than the people in Quebec. This is not true at all.

We think that Quebec has full authority over environmental matters when it comes to the third link. Does my colleague agree?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question. It will be interesting to see what project the Quebec government proposes.

I think that the Quebec government's expectation is very clear: The federal government should provide financial support and nothing else. The decisions must be made by and for the provinces.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about refitting buildings, especially, and lowering energy there, which is something we certainly agree on as New Democrats. Even the Conservatives had it in their platform, so it is something we all agree on.

The government, through Natural Resources Canada, put out the greener homes grant so people could retrofit their homes, lower their emissions and save money when it comes to home heating. However, I got an email from Tom, in my riding, who is one of many. He said, “Greener homes is a great program on paper and helps to motivate homeowners with energy-efficient upgrades, but if I knew the process would be this long and arduous I likely would not have applied. It needs to be fixed. Please help.” He cannot even get a call back. He has been waiting for months for his refit program.

Can my colleague speak about how important it is that when people do the right thing, the government follows through and makes sure they get the rebate quickly so they are encouraged to invest in clean energy?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an entire area in which not much has been done. I am talking about building energy efficiency. That is why I thought it was important to mention it in my speech.

Yes, efforts are being made, especially in Quebec. Hydro-Québec's Hilo project is one example. Just imagine how much energy we can recover. When I arrive home in my electric car, I can plug it in.

It is more difficult as a member of Parliament, considering our schedule, but an ordinary citizen who gets home at supper time could plug in their car, and the battery's energy could be used to prepare a meal or wash the dishes at a time of day when energy is in high demand. At the end of the day or during the night, the house would charge the electric car. This energy sharing is possible. It would be more energy efficient and would benefit everyone.

There are, however, set-up costs, and the government could give us a hand with that.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here in the House to discuss Bill S-5, or the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. This bill originated in the Senate this time, and it is being sponsored by Quebec Senator Marc Gold. We are at second reading stage.

Bill S‑5 seeks to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which dates back to 1999 and is commonly referred to as CEPA. This act would replace the Food and Drugs Act and repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act. This bill, which is not a complete overhaul of CEPA, seeks to amend CEPA in order to recognize the right to a healthy environment, consider vulnerable populations and the cumulative effects that may result from exposure to toxic substances, create a system for regulating toxic substances, and create a system for assessing and managing the risks that drugs pose to the environment.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill S‑5.

I would like to remind members that the Bloc Québécois believes that the Quebec nation is the sole authority over public decisions regarding the environment and the Quebec territory.

Until we achieve independence, however, certain environmental protection responsibilities fall to the federal government under the current legal framework. It is clear that the legislation needs to be modernized. There has not been an update in more than 20 years, since 1999.

Canada has fallen very far behind other nations. No one is surprised, really. Canada has never managed to meet a single climate target and is lagging far behind the rest of the world in the fight against climate change. I am not surprised that Canada has such outdated environmental legislation. It is unfortunate and sad, but that is how it is.

In 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development published a report containing 87 recommendations. One of those recommendations was to recognize the right to a healthy environment. Let us not be fooled, however. The Bloc Québécois did not fail to notice the partisan claims inserted into Bill S‑5.

Elements pertaining to the right to a healthy environment are found in CEPA's preamble, but their scope remains very limited. This means that they have no impact on other Canadian laws. While the bill would add the protection of this right to the federal government's mission, the proposed amendments would not necessarily create a true fundamental right to live in a healthy environment. To have a real impact, this right would have to be entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 2006, Quebec introduced the right to a healthy environment in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “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.” This right was entrenched in our laws in Quebec in 2006.

In Quebec's political context, the Quebec charter, unlike CEPA, is quasi-constitutional in scope, no matter what our colleagues from other parties believe. Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect Quebeckers' fundamental rights.

Over a year ago, on October 8, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council recognized that having a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right and called on “States around the world to work together, and with other partners, to implement this newly recognized right”.

In a statement, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights “called on States to take bold actions to give prompt and real effect to the right to a healthy environment”.

Over 100 countries have already recognized this right constitutionally, while Canada is just getting around to including it in a law that does not have any real scope. That is not surprising coming from a country that is addicted to oil and gas, but it is obviously very disappointing. It is not surprising, but it is disappointing.

Enshrining the right to a healthy environment in law is a good first step, and the Bloc Québécois welcomes that. That is why we will support Bill S-5.

Bill S‑5 contains a number of technical aspects that should be carefully examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This modernization should truly enable the government to fulfill its environmental protection responsibilities while respecting Quebec's sovereignty over vulnerable populations, chemical management, the list of toxic substances, the strengthening of risk management accountability, the overall assessment of the cumulative effects of substances, and mandatory labelling requirements.

The Bloc Québécois wants to work with all parliamentarians so that the repealed act reflects the recommendations of health and environmental protection groups and chemical industry partners as well as possible.

For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be vigilant in studying this bill.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S‑5.

This bill aims to modernize the entire environmental protection framework, and we understand full well that this is a shared responsibility. How does my colleague see the federal and provincial governments working together to protect this right to a healthy environment?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we must work together, that is for certain. As we know, the environment is very important to us in Quebec, and we are ahead of the curve, as my colleague mentioned earlier in a question to one of my colleagues. We are very aware of this issue. Perhaps it is in our genes, but we are highly aware.

In 2006, Quebec passed legislation similar to the bill we are discussing in the House today. Clearly Quebec is interested. Clearly Quebec will co-operate. Until we become independent, we are part of Canada.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing we do not talk enough about when we talk about the right to a healthy environment is indigenous people and food security, and the impact climate change is having on indigenous peoples.

Where I live the headline in Chek News today was “Drought destroys wild mushrooms in Vancouver Island forests”. These mushrooms are chanterelles and various different mushrooms. We have never, in history, not had chanterelles, but they are basically wiped out. The smoke is so bad we can barely breathe on the west coast. In terms of precipitation in the Comox Valley, they have had five millimetres from August to October, when it is normally 194 millimetres. In Port Alberni, where I live, there has been 6.6 millimetres of rain, and normally we have 332 millimetres of rain by now.

Maybe my colleague could speak about the climate emergency that we are under, the lack of urgency from the government, and how it is impacting both local food security in his community and indigenous people and the important non-timber forest products they rely on.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I like my NDP colleague. I appreciate his questions and his compassion.

His question covered a lot of ground. He started by talking about indigenous peoples, then disasters in British Columbia, then climate issues and so on. That is all very important to me, I have to say. I know it is also deeply important to him too. These are some of the issues he brings to our attention every day.

All I can say is that, although this is a big bill, it lacks substance. It is big, it is late, but it is here, and we will support it, as will the NDP, I imagine. There is so much to do. He mentioned the Liberal government, and it is clear that the government is not walking the talk as it buys pipelines and drills in the Atlantic. What it says does not line up with what it does. I know exactly where he is coming from with that question.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on something. If Quebec were a sovereign state, how far could it go in protecting and strengthening the environment and a healthy Quebec?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, it would be wonderful to have all the necessary levers. Some countries are doing a great job in that regard. One that comes to mind is New Zealand, whose example we could easily follow. Quebeckers are a straightforward people, and we could use the revenues we already have in a straightforward manner, without having this damned federal government that keeps putting obstacles in our way.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part this evening in the debate on Bill S‑5 on the environment, especially since it has been nearly three weeks since I was named the official opposition critic on the environment and climate change. I want to thank my leader, the member for Carleton, for trusting me with this exceptional mandate.

It is also exceptional to all Canadians, especially to our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren because they are the ones we need to think about when we consider taking action regarding the environment and climate change.

I am weighing my words. I am the climate change critic because climate change is real. Humankind, men and women, have contributed to it and humankind, men and women, have to participate in mitigating climate change and the impact it has on humanity as a whole and on the planet.

I also want to commend my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon. I have had the honour of working with him for nearly two years. He used to be the environment and climate change critic. He was very helpful and instrumental in the entirely acceptable and honourable transition between my previous duties regarding industry and the ones I am tasked with now regarding the environment and climate change.

The debate today is about Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.

Bill S‑5 is a technical bill that also provides a vision for the environment for the next 50 years. The bill also updates the regulations that have been in force since 1999. It goes without saying that we needed to make some major changes. We should also remember that this bill is more or less the same bill that was introduced as Bill C‑28 in the previous Parliament.

Speaking of the previous Parliament, more than a year ago, the current Prime Minister called an election one fine summer day when he decided that it would be a good idea to spend $630 million of taxpayers' money on an election that resulted in a House of Commons that was essentially the same. In the middle of a pandemic, when he said that we had to focus on the fourth wave, $630 million was spent. When we were in the midst of a fourth wave, the Prime Minister called an election, with the result that today, one year later, we are debating exactly, or just about, the same bill that had already been debated in the House of Commons. If it seems today that the government is not acting quickly enough on the environment, this is proof. The Prime Minister called a $630-million election so that the House of Commons would end up in about the same position, and now we need to start Bill C‑28 all over again.

It is rather surprising that the government decided to go through the other chamber. We know that we have a bicameral system, which means that there are two chambers, the House of Commons and the Senate. Both have the same legislative power. They both have the same power to tax citizens. The government decided to bring back Bill C‑28 but through the Senate this time. Then, the House of Commons needs to examine it. All of this is normal and above board, and I am not in any way trying to call into question the legitimacy of the upper chamber. On the contrary, I greatly appreciate the serious and rigorous work that senators do. They are able to work in a less partisan manner because they do not need to get re-elected. We therefore understand that it is exactly the same thing, but we are still rather surprised to see such an important bill originate in the Senate where there are no ministers, rather than in the House of Commons like normal. I guess I should say “as usual” because there is nothing abnormal about a bill originating in the Senate. I would not say that.

This bill was amended 24 times. The initial bill, Bill C‑28, was introduced again almost word for word in the Senate. The Senate examined it and made 24 amendments. We will have the opportunity to come back to that later, but in our system, it is important to understand that when the Senate makes amendments, the House of Commons must approve them.

If the House does not agree, the bill has to go back to the Senate so that the Senate can say whether it does or does not agree. If it does not, then the bill returns to the House. That can happen many times. Generally speaking, according to parliamentary tradition, a bill is passed in the House of Commons and then it goes to the Senate, which can make amendments. If the Senate does make amendments, then the bill returns to the House of Commons. If the House rejects the Senate's amendments, then the version of the bill passed by the House of Commons returns to the Senate. Usually, the Senate passes the same version, otherwise we can be playing ping-pong for a rather long time, and that may not necessarily be for the good of Canadians. We will see how things go with this 65-page bill.

Basically, as members were saying, this bill is an update of the Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which sets out general priority areas of action for the environment. We are wondering whether we should continue in that direction or whether things should be done differently. The bill talks about how everyone has the right to a healthy environment and about considering vulnerable populations.

When speaking of vulnerable populations, the first words that come to mind are “first nations”. The Conservatives' vision is that first nations must be and are partners in prosperity. When we undertake environmental projects, projects to develop our natural resources, projects that develop what we have on our land for the benefit of all Canadians and humanity through the intelligent use that we must make of it, we have to ensure that first nations are partners in prosperity.

In that regard, I would like to cite the example of natural resources in Quebec, which is a part of the country that I know well, to say the least. I am going to share a secret that I want everyone to keep under wraps. In my seven years in the Quebec National Assembly, I have always had a keen interest in natural resources, which I liked to call “natural riches”. Our resources are clearly riches when they are developed intelligently and respectfully.

Earlier I was listening to my colleagues and friends from the Bloc Québécois rightly talk about Quebec's expertise in green energy and renewable energy. Look at the hydroelectric projects. Let us not forget that Hydro-Québec was founded in 1944 under the leadership of the government of Joseph-Adélard Godbout. Then, in the 1950s, there was a lot of development involving this natural wealth that was the natural resources and the power of hydroelectricity. In 1949, the Beauharnois plant, which was managed by Hydro-Québec, doubled in size. In 1951, work began on the first major dams in the middle of the forest, the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 dams, inaugurated in 1953 and in 1956.

In 1954-55, very serious work began and studies were conducted on the two major rivers in Quebec for their extraordinary potential for hydroelectricity, the Outardes and Manicouagan rivers. In 1958, the Government of Quebec gave the green light for the major development of the seven main hydroelectric power plants that we have on the Ottawa river and the Manicouagan river. Everyone remembers Manic-5. Work there began in 1958.

The was also true for Carillon in 1959-60. The Carillon plant is an interesting example because, as early as 1959, the government had indicated to Hydro-Québec that the plant was to be run by French Canadians, as they were called at the time, in other words, Quebeckers. It was the first time that Quebeckers were responsible for the development of a power plant, and it was inaugurated in 1962, if I am not mistaken.

In short, a great deal of potential was developed in the 1950s and 1960s with the work that was done. I mention this because, in 1965, there was an agreement between the Quebec government and the first nations where the Manicouagan-Outardes project was located. A financial agreement was reached in 1965. It was worth barely $50,000. Six years later, when the Quebec government, under Robert Bourassa, launched the massive project in James Bay, the first nations there were not happy and held large demonstrations to ensure that they would be included as partners in those projects. After years of good faith negotiations between the first nations and the government of Premier Robert Bourassa, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was established.

I may be wrong about that, which is fine because it will give me a chance to learn more about our national history in Canada, but, to my knowledge, that was the first time there was such a lucrative agreement between equals, a partnership for prosperity between a government and first nations.

That agreement set the bar. In just 10 years, the parties moved from a $50,000 agreement to a permanent agreement for prosperity with positive economic outcomes for first nations and for the Quebec nation in the hundreds of millions of dollars. To us, it is clear that first nations are partners for prosperity in natural resource and environmental project development. I hope my colleagues will forgive me for going off on a bit of a tangent, but I do think it was somewhat interesting.

Getting back to Bill S‑5, let us talk about the toxic substances list. This is the central element of this bill, which addresses the rules for assessment, ministerial powers and products that can become toxic. We all need to realize that science has made incredibly rapid progress, which is a good thing. What was being done 10 years ago is obsolete; it is already outdated. We have to constantly adapt and update our techniques for properly developing and identifying products that are now toxic. Used one way, they may not necessarily be toxic, but if they are toxic, we have to be sure of it and know exactly where they will end up. That is what this bill takes on while at the same time cutting red tape and redundancy.

There was a lot of environmental work happening as well, and some environmental rules overlapped. I would like to mention that responsibility for environmental issues is shared between the provinces and the federal government, and everyone must act in good faith. The federal or provincial governments must not duplicate one another's work or do something twice in order to say they did it while the other did not. We must be effective and we must be partners. Our leader and our party have been very clear on this.

We know that the Quebec government, through its premier, announced about a month ago that it wants to revive major hydroelectric projects. However, that does not necessarily mean building a new power plant in the middle of the forest on a river that is not currently developed. It could also mean refurbishing current facilities or taking a river with an existing dam and building a second one next to it. That is exactly what happened with Manic-5 in the 1970s. Another outlet was created on the west side, and it was named Manic-5-PA. A second power plant could be built off an existing dam to produce energy, not as much as the first, but still quite a bit.

These are projects that we believe in. If the government has the will to forge ahead, we have full confidence in the province's environmental assessors. There is no need for federal assessments in this case in order to accelerate access to this green energy, this hydroelectric energy.

That is why it is also important to update all the products related to the environment and human activity, especially chemicals. We fully support this update. It needs to be updated.

Where we do have concerns, however, is regarding how to go about updating it. This could lead to agreements that might undermine future efforts. It is important to understand that decisions in this field must be based on science as much as possible. They must be as rigorous as possible, and they need to take into account all the technological and scientific advances that are being made to identify a particular product. A particular product may be toxic initially, but when better treated, when properly treated and placed in the right location, perhaps it can be a creative source. We need to be careful in how this is defined. Nevertheless, the industry also needs to be aware of this situation and think about how to remove a product that is toxic today but could be made non-toxic later on with proper and effective treatment. This needs to be proven.

I am going to talk about risk management, but first I want to talk about the general principles that we agree on.

We agree with the principle of the right to a healthy environment. That goes without saying, although I might add that this is nothing new. I learned that this morning by doing some research and talking to some people who are a lot more familiar with this file than I am. The state of Michigan enshrined this fundamental principle in law in 1970. They did that over 50 years ago in Michigan, a very industrial state in the heart of the United States. That description of Michigan is a bit of an understatement since Michigan is home to so many industries, including the auto industry. That state enshrined in law the principle of the right to a healthy environment in 1970. To my knowledge, it has not gone bankrupt yet. Yes, we can live like that.

The same is true of Yukon, which enshrined this principle in its legislation in 2002.

As I said earlier, Bill S-5 seeks to reduce the red tape and the duplication of work for the shared provincial and federal jurisdiction. As long as everyone agrees, as long as work is not duplicated and, most importantly, as long as neither government steps on the other's toes, I am sure everything will go well.

That is why, as I stated earlier and mentioned in a question to my Bloc colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, we have confidence in the provinces, whether for Hydro‑Québec projects or the third link project.

Let us come back to the issue of risk management.

It is a very delicate situation that deserves to be well known. Canada has laws concerning risk management that are among the best in the world. We are known and renowned for that. It is nothing new because the chemical and petrochemical industry has existed in Canada since Confederation. We have always been a leader in development, but also in risk assessment, especially over the past 50 years.

Canada is a world leader in risk management in several areas. I had the pleasure of describing the development of Quebec's hydroelectric sector in detail and the major projects that were implemented in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and on James Bay. Our expertise in hydroelectricity is world renowned.

The same goes for carbon capture. Here in Canada, we have developed techniques and made some cutting-edge technological and scientific breakthroughs. We should be proud of this knowledge, which we can export, because pollution is a global problem. Other places in the world do not have the same stringent standards as Canada, and unfortunately, pollution travels.

In Canada, we have champions in the areas of green, solar, wind and hydroelectric energy and carbon capture. Let us be proud of our accomplishments and our national success stories. Let us also be proud of what we are capable of doing to export them. This creates wealth for our country, but above all, it creates wealth when we share our expertise with the rest of the world so the entire planet recognizes and agrees that Canada is a leader in many fields and that its leadership will benefit all of humanity.

When a pollutant like CO2 arrives at the border, it does not bother with the ArriveCAN. It wastes no time crossing the border and coming straight into our country.

Canada is not the only country facing major problems because of climate change. Canada has valuable expertise, and we need to spread the word. We need to champion that expertise.

I want to come back to Bill S‑5. I have one minute left and just enough time to say that 24 amendments have been proposed and we have concerns about nine of them. They are the ones we think create more problems and more red tape, so we should be more wary of that.

In closing, for us as Conservatives, climate change is real, humans are partly responsible for it and they must make the necessary efforts to correct the situation. Since this government came to power and implemented the Liberal carbon tax, pollution in Canada has not decreased. On the contrary, it has emptied the public's wallets and people are not getting their money's worth, contrary to what the Liberals say. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said as much.

For us, the environment is first and foremost about reducing greenhouse gas emissions through research and development and access to green energy. We want to accelerate the implementation of projects and promote Canadian expertise.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way. I am looking forward to working together with him on the environment committee. I also congratulate him on his new posting with respect to the environment.

As the hon. member was speaking, I was thinking about some of the practicalities of having a national collaboration on environmental protection. Companies like Rio Tinto Alcan, which is in British Columbia and Saguenay, are doing wonderful work in both places. How important is it that we have a standard that the provinces, the territories, indigenous people and the Canadian federal government all agree on so businesses doing business across Canada can all be working toward the same environmental protection standards?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments of my colleague. Yes, we will work together hand in hand for the future of this country and on environmental and climate change issues.

What the member has highlighted is something I truly believe in. The private sector knows how to deal with pollution, not the government. Those people are the ones who know how to address it. They know where the problem is and how to solve it because they are researchers and scientific people. They know what they are doing with respect to that.

I am very proud to see that, from coast to coast, big companies are getting involved more than ever with respect to reducing pollution. First of all, the best energy is the energy we do not use. It is the greenest energy. Therefore, if we reduce our demand for energy, if we see the fact that when we do something we create pollution, we could achieve great things. However, first and foremost, it is not the government who knows how—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague, who is now the environment critic. That is a big file, so bravo.

I was listening to him earlier and I was reminded of Bill C-225, which I introduced in 2020 and which gave Quebec precedence with respect to environmental assessments. My Conservative colleagues' penchant for oil is rather troubling. If there were ever an oil or gas pipeline project that did not suit Quebec, I wonder whether my colleague would agree that Quebec's prerogative should be respected.

Earlier he said that he had confidence in Quebec and in Quebec's legislation regarding the third link. I remember a Conservative project involving an energy corridor. Should that energy corridor be subject to Quebec's environmental assessments? If that did not work, would my colleague agree that Quebec's rules and laws take precedence over—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased with my colleague's question, but I am a bit upset that he did not use the word “skeptical”. Generally when he hears a Conservative member, he says he is skeptical, so I am a bit upset, but I think he will have another chance. Obviously I am just teasing my colleague.

The question he raises is very important, especially when it comes to pipelines. The member must know that Jason Kenney did not invent pipelines. There have been pipelines in Quebec since 1942. Do members know how many kilometres of pipeline there currently are in Quebec? The answer is nearly 2,000. Do members know that there are currently pipelines under the St. Lawrence River? There are not just one, two or three. There are not just five, six, seven or eight, either. In fact, there are nine.

Does the member know that, in 2012, Quebec launched a brand-new pipeline? That pipeline is not in a so-called remote region, with all due respect to the people who do not live in city centres. This is a St. Lawrence pipeline that starts in Lévis and goes to Montreal, spans 248 kilometres, 630 different lands and crosses 26 waterways in the St. Lawrence River. This pipeline has been in place since 2012 and operates so well that no one is aware of it and no one talks about it.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent on becoming the environmental spokesperson for his party, and for that reason I will listen with care to his answer to my question.

A recent study from Environmental Defence found that 30% of products in well-known dollar stores contained heavy metals, such as lead, and toxic chemicals. Studies have shown that nine out of 10 Canadians have been found to have endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which have been used widely in consumer products, in their bloodstream. Would the member support improvements to this bill to require the mandatory labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products so that Canadians know what dangers they are exposing themselves and their children to?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, we would like to see what the amendment is precisely. I am quite sure the member would do it correctly, and we will study it very seriously when he tables the amendment.

Obviously, when we talk about a toxic situation, we do not want to see people having access, freely, to some difficulty. There is a lot of debate on that, but first and foremost, we have to study it based on the scientific proof. The more scientific proof we have, the more research we do, the better we are. When we talk about the environment, there are great steps that we have moved forward on in the last decade and in the last century, and I really believe that, in Canada, we have the scientific people to achieve great things together.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question has to do with the plastic industry, and my concern is with the virtue signalling of this government.

For example, 93% of the plastics that are going into the ocean come from 10 rivers, and none of them are in Canada. However, we are moving to paper straws, for example, from plastic straws. Now, the life cycle of a plastic straw is 1.5 grams of CO2 compared to the paper one, which is 4.1 grams of CO2. There maybe a well-meaning purpose here, but the government is not looking at the science.

Could the member comment on the virtue signalling versus the concrete action that needs to be done for Canada with the bill before us?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a doctor, and I am very pleased to see him here in the House of Commons.

Based on the member's question, I think we have a responsibility, first of all, as citizens. Do we need to have access to something that is polluting? This is what we have to keep in mind. Do we need it, or can we do things differently to reduce our footprint of pollution?

Yes, government has a responsibility, as does business, and scientific people can help us to make a good choice, but first and foremost, as Conservatives, we believe in the individual freedom of choice of the people, and this freedom of choice also calls for responsibility. As citizens of the world, we shall be very protective of our environment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, having a right to a healthy environment is really what Bill S-5 is all about, and there are a number of initiatives in there to advance us on that.

However, the member opposite made reference to indigenous issues in the province of Quebec under Premier Bourassa and being very sensitive to that. However, one of the calls for action that I believe could technically be incorporated into the legislation is the obligation to work with and consult indigenous communities. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts, in thinking of a healthy environment. Would it not be absolutely wrong for any political entity in the House to not recognize the value of that consultation and incorporating UNDRIP into the legislation?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, consultation does not give veto rights, which is why we have to work together hand in hand and be sure that each and every person who is involved in a project are partners in its prosperity.

Again, I will give the great example of the agreement of the Government of Quebec and first nations in 1975 for the James Bay project. It was huge. It was almost half a century ago, and we may have achieved that kind of agreement before, but as far as I am concerned, this was the most efficient deal that we had between a government and first nations.

We did that in 1975, but just 10 years before, in 1965, the Quebec government gave $50,000 to first nations, and that is not the way to do it. However, 10 years later, we achieved great things. Yes, as long as I will be here, and as long as we have those kinds of projects, I will always work hard to ensure that first nations—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will resume debate with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have worked on the Canadian Environment Protection Act since before its first reading in the late 1980s. I was in the office of the minister of environment, so I know the bill quite well. It is with the greatest and most profound sense of sadness that I see what we have before us, because so many opportunities to modernize and do what needs to be done are lost.

I fervently hope that this bill, which comes to us from the Senate, will be significantly improved at committee. Many members have spoken to areas that need improvement, and I want to emphasize the ones I can in my time.

I would like to preface my remarks by saying that a lot of what we have discussed today on Bill S-5 has been about the climate crisis. I want to identify that I think the Environmental Protection Act has tools we can use to address the climate crisis, tools the current government is not using.

I want to make a point that is not made very often in this place, and that is that, when we talk about the climate crisis, we are incorrect when we classify it as an environmental issue. The U.S. Biden administration has correctly classified the climate crisis as a security threat. There is much that we need to protect in our environment, and this bill speaks to a number of areas that are not specifically about climate, but that create tools we could use. We should use those tools in part four, and I will speak to that later, but we should stop assuming that, when we talk about the climate crisis, that we are talking about an environmental threat. We are talking about a threat to the survival of human civilization.

Looking at what we have before us in Bill S-5, on protecting the environment, I want to approach it in three categories. The first is what is missing. The second is what is wrong in the act, and the third is what is better because of some amendments that were recently made.

What is missing is a long list. This is a big act. When it was bought together, as I mentioned, back in the 1980s, it took a number of bits of different legislation on ocean dumping, clean air and commercial chemicals and lumped them together. We called it the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

It has served us well. It has survived a Supreme Court challenge. I want to return to that, but one of the things that is missing in this act is that not all sections of the act are being reviewed or amended, which means that if we, as parliamentarians, see an opportunity to improve something that is in the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we cannot touch it in committee. It would be outside the scope of the act.

For instance, we can look at part six, which deals with ocean dumping and genetically modified organisms. Here we are, the only country on earth that has regulated and approved genetically modified animals for human consumption, and we are not modernizing that section of the act.

We have, in fact, approved something called AquaBounty Atlantic salmon, which is genetically engineered. We should be looking at the genetically modified organisms part of part six, but we are not.

Another part that is missing is the right to a healthy environment. It is mentioned, yes, and we have talked about it. A number of members have mentioned the gaps there, including, very recently in this debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

Here is the problem: The government says that it is going to create a right to a healthy environment, but it will not be enforceable. A right that is not enforceable is no right at all.

This point has been made by many who have looked at the act, including the very important observation note that came to this place, attached as a note from the other place, where they studied the bill and made amendments. They said that we cannot have a right to a healthy environment if we leave in place all of the barriers to enforcement that exist in section 22 of the act.

We have to get to that. We cannot have that ruled outside the scope of what a committee gets to look at.

What is wrong? My gosh, I never thought that, in 2022, we would have a climb down from the advances in environmental protection brought about by the Mulroney government. In 1988, the act was better at listing toxic chemicals than what we have in front of us right now.

If members think I am angry, I am. I am appalled.

Schedule 1 in the current act, as it has been since 1988 when it got royal assent, says that it is the list of toxic substances. The title is “List of Toxic Substances” in schedule 1. Here we have this proposal from the current government to take that away and not use the term “List of Toxic Substances”. The climbdown to a two-list category is absolutely wrong-headed and baffling. It also undermines the constitutional underpinnings of this act.

We should look at the fact that in 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. Hydro-Québec, found that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was within federal jurisdiction specifically because it used the criminal law head of power in dealing with toxic substances.

If we take out the word “toxic”, we are going to get constitutional challenges. We have already seen some industry coalition folks start talking about it last year, when we saw the first version of this act. I am going to quote from a blog from a very important group. The expert NGO on this is the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and its lead counsel, Joe Castrilli, said this: “[L]egislative drafting should always try to avoid playing with constitutional fire.” This is a big mistake. This is very wrong.

Another problem we have is that since the year 2000, of the substances listed for pollution-prevention planning, only 25 out of 150 have seen pollution-prevention plans. Therefore, we are failing to meet the expectations of Canadians. We are listing something as a toxic substance and telling Canadians, “This is a threat to your health and we want to see pollution-prevention planning, only we are not going to make it mandatory. Oh no, it is something you can do if you feel like it and you are in an industry that is producing toxic substances.”

That is so far from good enough. The need for pollution-prevention planning on chemicals that are dangerous to our health, that cause cancer and that cause birth defects does not bear repeating. We have to fix this, please. We have to make pollution prevention mandatory. We also have to create the opportunity for governments to do the research that needs to be done, not as an opportunity that the minister has, but as a requirement: The minister must do this research.

We have looked at a number of areas in this bill where much more needs to be done. We have to make sure we delete the section that would create a two-list system and make sure the list is defined, as it has been since 1988, as a list of toxic substances. Let us not undermine that, and let us strengthen pollution-prevention planning.

Let me just close on what is better. I have covered what is missing and what is wrong. What is better, thanks to the other place, is the strengthening around issues of vulnerable populations. Additional language is very much appreciated.

I have a private member's bill, and I have had the honour to see it supported in this place. It has now passed second reading. It is going to the environment committee, and many of the specific amendments that were just made in the Senate really helped put us on the road. The bill I am speaking of is Bill C-226, to confront environmental racism and create programs in environmental justice.

Much of what we have before us now gets us ahead on how we create programs that are forward-looking to promote environmental justice. One of them, of course, will be to join the 150 countries around the world that already have legislation that requires a right to a healthy environment. We are not inventing something here. We should know how to do it, and we should not wait two years.

We also have very specific guidance here in what we have before us in Bill S-5. It is better. It has good definitions and good sections on how we protect individuals in vulnerable groups from toxic substances.

We can do better than what we have before us in Bill S-5. We have waited 20 years to look at this bill again. It was always good legislation. It always could have been better. We cannot let it get worse. We cannot allow it to be weakened in this place in the year 2022. Let us improve this bill in committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, much has been said in this debate about the Progressive Conservatives of the seventies, eighties and early nineties, and the incredible work they did to protect our environment. As I listened to the member speak, I could not help but reflect on the fact that she was actually a senior policy adviser to the then minister of environment back in the mid-eighties, when Brian Mulroney tackled huge challenges like the ozone layer and acid rain.

Can she take this opportunity to reflect on those years of Progressive Conservatives and expand on whether she thinks the Conservative Party today is coming from the same place the Progressives, like Flora MacDonald and Brian Mulroney, came from in the eighties?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was one of the greatest privileges of my life as a non-party member. I was never a Conservative, but that government did great work.

I have to say that I am not sure any of the parties are as good on the environment now as they were in the eighties. I do not want to make this comment partisan, but there is no question in my mind that the Liberals in the 1980s, whether it was the Liberal environment minister in Ontario, Jim Bradley, who pushed so hard on acid rain, or the Liberal environment minister from the province of Quebec, the honourable Clifford Lincoln. All these individuals who were leaders in the movement, whether New Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives, were stronger then than now.

I would say that what has intervened is the rise of corporate rule and the fact that many people in politics defer to corporations and polluters in ways that our leaders then, like the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, would never have done. We should reflect on that too.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Green Party for her speech. I want to get her input on the idea of competitiveness.

She knows I come from a community that does a lot of manufacturing with plastics. We try to make cars lighter and integrate it into the manufacturing. My concern is the way plastics are being treated in this bill. Inadvertently, we may be driving the pollution to other parts of the world.

For example, I brought up that 93% of the plastic going into the oceans is from 10 rivers, and none of them is in Canada. There is the Yangtze River in China, for example.

The carbon footprint for the lifetime of a plastic straw is about 1.5 grams, whereas for a paper straw it is 4.1 grams. We are putting in these policies that may affect our competitiveness here in North America.

What is the member's advice to make sure we do not have that pollution leakage to other parts of the world, like China, because of our policies being too strong or different here?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member for Oshawa that there is no way in this world that we could accuse the Liberal government of being too strong with its actions on single-use plastics.

We have an appallingly weak set of regulations. Nothing in any government announcement or in this act will reduce the use of lightweight plastics in the manufacturing of durable goods. Nothing.

We do know that if we change the way this act is worded, we undermine its constitutionality. I can tell the member that none of those 10 major rivers has anything to do with the plastic contamination that we find on our shorelines in Canada. We need to take action under CEPA. We need to list and regulate the use of substances like polystyrenes for uses like floats and wharfs. They should be banned. They are contaminating our waterways and our wildlife, and, ultimately, they are poisoning us.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke a bit about the right to a healthy environment.

Can she share more about the implications of that right being only in the preamble of the bill, as well as these words about it being balanced with other factors, including economic ones?

What are the implications of this so-called right being balanced against other factors?

Lastly, would she share more about how this could be improved in future stages of the legislation?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I love the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. We are each half of our caucus.

The Senate did improve this by removing the balancing. It said it can be limited by factors that would normally be used to limit any extended right, but the bill has improved in that area. The right to a healthy environment is no right at all if it cannot be enforced. We have to take the barriers out of section 22. We have our work cut out for us as parliamentarians, regardless of political stripe—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize, but we need to resume debate.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here speaking to Bill S-5. Although I have some major concerns about it, it is an important step that we are taking and I look forward to seeing the next steps that are completed.

I live in a rainforest. One thing we are very sure of in my area of the world is that things in our area are usually wet, even when it is very, very hot. We have now lived through several months of having hardly any rain, so we are now in a situation in my area where we are in a drought. We cannot do any kind of burning, because the risk of forest fire is too big. That is because there is a change in the environment that is having such a meaningful impact that all Canadians should be very concerned.

I know the people in my riding are very concerned. I remember one day it rained here in Ottawa. Because I am from an area with a rainforest, I really enjoy rain and was happy to see it. I had so many constituents reach out to me and say they would really appreciate it if I could bring the rain home with me. It is something we can laugh about, but it is also something my area is very concerned about.

As we move forward on any bill that says we need to recognize the right to a healthy environment, I am all in. I want to be part of that, and we need to do better. We know that across this planet over 150 countries have made this commitment. They have legal obligations they are accountable for. Canada still has not taken that step, so we need to see that action. A lot of Canadians are watching what is happening and want to see action that means something.

Quite honestly, we keep seeing something in this place that is not taking the next step. I will be talking about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act today, which I will keep calling CEPA. This bill would amend CEPA to recognize the right to a healthy environment, confirm the government's commitment to implementing UNDRIP under the act and strengthen the chemicals management plan, including the need to take into consideration vulnerable populations and cumulative events.

It has been more than 20 years since this has been done, and modernization in this day and age could not be more important. It could not be more of a priority. These last few years, in my riding, we have had some challenging times. I talked about one earlier, but I also want to talk about the fact that not too long ago we saw the ZIM Kingston incident in our area, where there was a significant spill of about 109 containers. Of those containers, about four washed up on shore in my riding.

Just in case people do not understand, my riding is very remote. A lot of those beautiful beaches along the coastline are hard to get to, and people do not see them often. When one starts receiving images from constituents showing a beach full of plastic toys and refrigerators, one feels very concerned about it. When we look at this, we know contamination is not only having an impact on our bodies, and I will talk about that in a bit, but also having a significant impact on the oceans around my area.

In the last few months, in the late spring, I was over in Savary Island, which is one of many communities in my riding, picking up waste. It was huge. The community came out and people were cleaning up the beaches and pulling things out of the ocean. I had an opportunity to talk to Catherine and Paul, and we had chats about nurdles.

For those who do not know, nurdles are tiny little pieces of styrofoam. I am going to use that word, because most people are familiar with it. They get everywhere. If one has ever had the experience of trying to clean them off the beach, one realizes how hard it is. What is even more concerning, of course, is that it continues to contaminate the ocean atmosphere for fish and other wildlife, and that really concerns me.

I think of the work the community has done on having petitions sent to the House, which I have been happy to read for this place, to talk about how we are going to start to address that and make sure there is not that waste in the marine environment and in some of the industries out on the water. I thank Angela from Fishing for Plastic, who has also been a big part of that.

One of the things that concerns me about this bill is what we have seen in the Senate. We saw a letter that went to the Senate from some of Canada's biggest polluters, and they are trying to block amendments. They are trying to say do not go that far. At some point we have to decide. Are we going to continue to hope and wait to see if some sort of miracle will happen and we will not be in this environmental crisis that we are in right now, or are we actually going to take action?

I know there is a lot of push. There are a lot of industries telling us that we cannot take that next step, but I think it is absolutely important that we do.

We know that CEPA is Canada's main law to regulate toxic substances. We know that we are seeing more and more indicators that there are toxic substances in a lot of things, and there is not a lot of accountability around what they are. That means in our communities we are using things that may cause harm and we just do not know about it.

Those are some of the things we need to address. We know that the Senate did make some positive amendments. I really appreciated their removing some of the troubling language around the right to a healthy environment. It should be balanced with relevant factors.

Again, it seems like a simple choice for me. I know that not all of my friends in this place agree, but at some point either we are going to choose a healthy environment and put investment and support into moving in that direction or we are going to continue down the same path that we are on. It is not a safe path.

There are some things that I am very concerned about in this bill, some troubling weaknesses and loopholes that we would like to see amended. I talked earlier about strengthening the right to a healthy environment and not seeing limiting factors, and how that right is applied is really important. We also need to see some work done ensuring that toxic substances' assessments are kept up to date as the scientific understanding of risks evolves and exposure increases.

Why I think this is so important is that businesses are really good at knowing the rules. I appreciate that. That is their job, to know the rules, but they can often find ways to move around them. We need to make sure, as we move forward with CEPA, that there are assessments happening rigorously through time so that we can always keep up to date with that scientific understanding so that we are mitigating those risks. I think everybody in this country understands how important that is.

We also need to improve public accountability and require clear guidelines and timelines for the management of toxic substances. This is just about accountability. I talk to everyday Canadians. I have talked to, in my riding, some people who are very environmentally aware and have very specific notions of where they want to go. I have also talked to people who just want it to get better and they do not know what to do with that information. One of the things I hear from them is that they do not feel like the systems are clear enough for them to be able to understand it as an everyday Canadian. They are busy. They have a lot of things happening. I think it is important that we have that public accountability, and it should be not only public but accessible.

I will talk about this forever. I have served a lot of people with different challenges, whether it be in their ability to speak a language because they have come from another country, a lack of education or a developmental issue. Accountability and accessible information has always been one of the biggest challenges, so I hope to see that as well.

I also think it is important that there is mandatory labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products. We are still seeing a lack of formal understanding here. This is something that is not in the bill that I think needs to be amended. We need to make sure that we are transparent with people.

Of course, we need to address pollution hot spots in this country. We have to acknowledge as a country that they are often in indigenous, racialized and low-income communities. This is something that all of us should take into serious account. This bill, at this point, does not deal with this in a way that I think is as powerful and meaningful as it could be. We need to address this issue. We need to take accountability for the fact that environmental distress and indigenous justice, racialized justice and low-income justice are totally intersectional. They are a place that we need to take accountability and start addressing this in a more meaningful way.

As I said, I am going to support this to be sent to committee. I certainly hope to see all parties work together to get some of this important work done, because it needs to be accessible. Everyday Canadians need to understand the rules so that they can hold to account the corporations that will be working within those rules.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the member was speaking about plastics and the need to curb our usage of those plastics. The reality of the situation is that the very first piece of plastic that was ever made is still in existence today, and it will likely be hundreds if not thousands of years before it is no longer around.

We continually hear the narrative from the Conservatives that we need specialized plastics in certain types of aircraft; therefore, we cannot get rid of plastics and we should abandon all hope of even trying to pick the low-hanging fruit. The reality is that, although with some types of aircraft there are specialized plastics that we still need right now, we do know that other things like straws could be replaced with other options.

Would the member not agree that, even though we cannot move forward with some of these specialized plastics that we need, there are other areas we could look to curb plastic use and plastic consumption?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do agree, but I also think that part of this is understanding there is innovation in this country. When we look at what is happening in our environment, it seems that it is often a discussion of right now change or no change at all. I think there is a progression that needs to happen, but that needs to be really invested in and the rules need to be in place.

I agree. I think we need to do our work. I have heard from some folks from the disability community who have said to me really clearly that there are some uses of plastic that are really important to them, and we need to listen to those voices. However, there is so much innovation that needs to be invested in. Quite frankly, we need rules put in place in this country so that it pushes innovation. Things do not get done if there is not a rule that they have to meet, so let us make sure those rules are in place so that we can get to that innovation.

I believe it is possible, because a long time ago none of us thought we would be flying in a plane but we are. Let us see what innovation can happen in the next while.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the right to a healthy environment. I know she talked about some of the changes that the Senate made. However, I find it really important. The member mentioned that it should be clear what the rules are. When we use the term “right” in this place, we could open up the Constitution Act, 1982, and see the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where they are very clear and they are laid out.

I would just like to find out if the NDP member would agree that what the government has put in Bill S-5 and is billing as a “right to a healthy environment” is a fraud. Again, a right is something that is enforceable. This is something that, through the CEPA process, a bureaucrat would determine, through other socio-economic factors, this so-called “right to a healthy environment.” A right is either a right or it is something else.

Would the member stand in her place and tell us whether she agrees it is an actual right or an outright fraud?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the House. I know it has been a long time, but back in 2016, I put forward a private member's bill that was on the right to housing, which I wanted added to the bill of rights in Canada. What we are looking at right now, of course, is so many people unhoused across this country and no accountability on a federal level. There is no mechanism for people to step up and say that this is not being done.

Do I think the Liberals could do better on this language? Absolutely, I do. Will our party amend that? Absolutely, we will. Do I think that Canadians deserve a right to a healthy environment? I absolutely do, and I am willing to stand in the House and vote for that any day of the week.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and I appreciate how much environmental issues matter to her.

One thing I want to know is why the agreement between the NDP and the Liberals is based on issues that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Also, since they were so focused on provincial issues, why not include the environment too?

Now that the blank cheque is signed and the agreement is in place, my colleague will have to support the many gag orders that the Liberal Party will impose under the guise of strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada.

What are my colleague's thoughts on the Liberals' decision to resume oil exploration by approving Bay du Nord and on the fact that they seem to be doing anything but protecting the environment for a healthier Canada?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree. As a very proud Canadian, even with the many challenges that this country faces, I am willing to face them with the people of my country. It is important that we work well with the provinces and territories, but we also have to make sure that there is a set of standards. New Democrats are continuing to push the government, forcing it, quite frankly, into doing things that we feel will make a significant difference in Canadians' lives, and I will continue to do that. The environment is really struggling, but we need to stand up and do it right, collectively as a country.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill S-5, a very important and much-needed piece of legislation to revise and strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. It has been over 20 years since this act has been updated, so we really need to get this legislation through and make sure we have a good conversation about all aspects of it.

This act has a long title, but its real impact is best conveyed in the short title, which is “strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada”. There are so many constituents in my green riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, green due to its spectacular rains, outdoor spaces, trails and kettle lakes, not necessarily because of its political persuasion, who are advocates for stronger environmental protection. They are champions for preserving green spaces, people like Sue Walmer, Jan Oudenes and Isobel Ralston, who were in Ottawa this week for a summit on the vital work of land trusts. They are activists fighting to protect Canadian health through regulating harmful substances like Gloria Marsh from the York Region Environmental Alliance, champions of greater efficiencies in buildings to reduce carbon emissions like Walter Bauer, and those fighting for animal welfare through strengthened animal protection regulations like Wayne King and Judith Goldberg.

There are many more in my riding and many people across our country. We know it is not limited because studies have shown that nine in 10 Canadians are concerned about children's exposure to toxins in consumer products, for example, and impacts on wildlife, such as birds and fish. There are 92% of Canadians who agree that Canada should recognize Canadians' right to live in a healthy environment. That is why I am proud, as an environmentalist and a member of the environment committee, to fight for Bill S-5 and the fact that we are recognizing that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment.

These amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act represent the Liberal government's promise to devote more energy to current environmental issues. Environmental issues and Canadians' well-being go hand in hand, so these issues call for a comprehensive approach.

Let us talk about one of the main components of this bill, the right to a healthy environment. It is the first time this language has been introduced into federal legislation and it was one of the key themes of the 2017 environmental report. It builds into the framework of Bill S-5 core principles, such as environmental justice, intergenerational equality and non-regression. It is a key step in ensuring that all Canadians will have recourse if they feel their health is at risk.

The language also heavily integrates indigenous concerns and consultation into the process of environmental stewardship, drawn on language from and ensuring Canada's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. It would require the minister to development an implementation framework, and the process of developing this framework would be open to public consultation and input from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This would ensure that this right under this act would address many of the concerns that have been raised here today.

One of the aspects of the bill that has not been discussed so far is the reduction of animal testing. As an animal rights activist myself, I feel that this is a very important aspect. This would address our commitment to end animal testing and reliance on animal testing. We know that there are times when this is necessary, but we are making a commitment to only use animal testing of vertebrates when absolutely necessary and to work on making sure that there are alternatives so that we no longer have to test toxic substances on animals.

Canada and other key international partners, such as the United States and the European Union, are moving toward phasing out animal toxicity testing where possible. It is an issue of concern for many Canadians, such as, as I mentioned, some of my own constituents and me. It is a sign of our government's commitment to increasing the use of non-animal testing methods. I have consulted and talked to numerous parties about this change, including Animal Justice, the Humane Society International and Humane Canada.

We are also working on the mandatory labelling of products containing toxic substances. We are committed to this and we are going to be working on providing a complete framework as to how this should best be done and making sure that imported and domestic products are required to have the same kind of labelling.

There would be a new regulatory framework for the substitution of chemicals. There would also be new categories to highlight areas of concern, like carcinogenic and mutagenic substances and substances that are harmful to reproductive health.

We are going further with this bill, and I know that my dear friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned that she had some concern about this. I am really looking forward to working with her and other members at committee, as we bring this bill forward, to make sure that all concerns are addressed and that the bill really does address the concerns of all Canadians in this area and many others.

I am committed to a Canada that protects our health and the health of all of us. We need to get this bill to committee so we can study it further, look at the amendments the Senate has made and ensure we get it through and update the 1999 legislation.

I feel it is very important that we continue to work together, continue to work across levels of government and continue to work with all parties to ensure that this commitment to having a healthy environment and healthy Canadians moves forward. All the good things about this bill should be built upon. Let us get it through so that we finally update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

I am happy to answer questions.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's positive comments on the bill, but I think she may know, as others do, that one of the things I really want to see is mandatory labelling of heavy metals and toxic chemicals on consumer products, which is not in the bill at present. As I have referred to several times in this debate, we found that in dollar stores, lots of the products that have been tested contain heavy metals and toxic chemicals.

Would the member's party be willing to consider amendments that would make mandatory labelling of these consumer products available to parents so they can decide what they are going to expose their families to?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a very important issue, and knowing what substances are in these products is important. There is language in the bill addressing this and it will be studied further. I look forward to having that conversation in committee and to trying to strengthen this bill as much as possible.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for talking about how she is prepared to work with the opposition to try to make changes to the legislation as it goes to committee. That is a good sign.

We see in the legislation the scheduling of toxic products. It talks about how to put products onto schedule 1 or schedule 2, but what it does not talk about is how we take them off when scientists find out that a product is no longer toxic.

Would the member be prepared to move forward with putting in legislation that would change that to allow steps to be put in place to make certain that toxic products that are no longer considered toxic can actually be removed?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am willing to work across the aisle and willing to work with anyone to improve the environment and address issues that will lead to a healthier Canada. There is language in this bill about removing substances when they are no longer used in Canada, and I certainly hope that toxic substances are no longer being used in Canada. I think that would address the member's concern.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill mentioned animal testing specifically in her speech and that there is language in Bill S-5 that moves in the right direction. Specifically, there is mention of encouraging the development of other alternatives.

I wonder if the member could comment more on whether she feels this is sufficient and/or if more could be done.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a believer in “better is always possible”, so I think more can be done. I think we need to look at this carefully.

I have a dear friend who is suffering from ovarian cancer. She is a doctor of veterinary medicine, and currently there is testing being done at the University of Guelph on cows that have ovarian cancer. In some cases, when there are no options available, I support testing on animals, but I think we have to do everything we can to find find substitutes and to only use this testing when it is absolutely necessary. I would like to strengthen that as well.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her work on the environment committee.

What piqued my interest is when she talked about working across the aisle and trying to do better things for Canadians and the environment by working with the opposition. I would ask her to consider this. How can we look across the aisle and work with the opposition when on a daily basis we get such a kickback every time we try to come up with an environmental initiative? It gets very frustrating, from my point of view. I would be interested in the member's thoughts on how we might be able to break through.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I guess hope is eternal and something is always possible. I know that at the environment committee, in working with members of all parties, we try to find common ground.

I do not want to have debates about whether climate change is real, as we are far beyond that, but I believe we can work together to try to move forward, because everybody feels that a heathier Canada and a healthier environment are good not only for Canadians but for all citizens around the world. I hope we can work together.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today as we debate Bill S-5, a piece of legislation that would make significant changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, otherwise known as CEPA. CEPA has not had any major modifications made to it since it was passed in 1999, so there are a lot of aspects of this bill that would have major impacts on the lives of Canadians and on industry, especially as they relate to certain substances and materials.

When people think of the word “legislation”, they expect wording that is clear and concise. Given that bills are eventually enshrined into our laws, it is reasonable to assume that much thought and intention has gone into the words that are being used, and that there is no opportunity for confusion or room for interpretation that could lead to problems for the government in the long term.

One part of the bill that falls under that category, in my view, is the right to a healthy environment, which is in the preamble and not in the legislation. I want to be clear that all of my Conservative colleagues and I firmly believe in and support the right to a healthy environment for each and every Canadian. We are so fortunate to live in a country that contains so many different ecosystems and is filled with natural beauty from coast to coast to coast. It is understandable that we want to be sure that our healthy environment is present and thriving all across the country, not just today but for future generations as well.

The challenge with this is that it is undefined. Having wording that is open to interpretation on such an important matter like this could create issues down the road. If this piece of legislation needs to be revisited years from now because of a lack of clarity, it will cost the taxpayer money. The ideal situation would be to add a definition now or when the bill goes to committee to ensure that we are not going to run into any issues and that there is clarity over what this important right really means.

We also want be sure that the use of vague terminology without a proper definition does not potentially lead to litigation. I do not believe that this is the intent of the bill, so this needs to be tightened up to provide absolutely certainty regarding the definition.

I bring this up because most Canadians watching this are expecting to see us around a table working out some good legislation. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture is quoted as saying the “real role” of the opposition parties is to improve legislation and programming. Hopefully the government is prepared to make some amendments to this going forward, with consideration given to our feedback.

It sure sounds good in the media to say that this right is important and is a priority, but if there are no measures for progress and no benchmarks outlined in the legislation, how is anyone going to know that we have actually done the work? It seems like including the right to a healthy environment in Bill S-5 is more about getting a good sound bite than actually improving the lives of Canadians and our environment.

Another thing that I am concerned about with respect to this particular part of the bill is that it gives the minister two years to come up with an implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment, when we know that it took five years just to consult with the public. If this is an essential right, why is it going to take so long for the minister to come up with a simple definition of what this right looks like? To me, it cannot be a priority if it is going to take years to come up with a framework around the issue, let alone the time it would take to actually implement it.

Why does the government struggle so hard to do more than one thing at a time? This part of the bill is yet another virtue-signalling policy that does not do a single thing to help the environment and does a disservice to Canadians. What the Liberals do not understand is that this needs to be done correctly, transparently and in a timely manner, something we have learned the government is unfortunately incapable of doing.

Another aspect of the bill that I have some concern about has to do with plastics, specifically with the word “toxic” being removed from the title of the schedule but still being referred to everywhere else in the legislation. Again, this creates confusion and a lack of clarity for anyone who might read the bill going forward. It also seems to me that the time and money being spent on this would be put to better use if they were invested in things like recycling and clean technology, rather than vilifying an industry and product that every single person in the House uses every day.

Just think for a second about how essential plastics are in our day-to-day lives. The houses we live in, the cars we drive, the public transit we take and the technology that allows us to do our jobs, like phones and computers, all rely on plastic.

Plastics are also irreplaceable in many fields of medicine and science, and without them, we would not have had the necessary PPE that was used during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as things like IV lines, IV bags, intubation tubes, feeding tubes, syringes and valves, respirators and ventilators, oxygen masks, rehabilitation equipment and suction cups, not to mention the children's toys that placated families when they were sitting at home and isolated. While I understand that plastic is not perfect, it makes no sense that our government continues to vilify a product and an industry that continually makes our lives better and easier, and allows us to live as comfortably as we do.

I was fortunate to be given a tour of the Heartland Petrochemical Complex near Fort Saskatchewan while it was in its development stage, and as of July 5, it was officially opened. In fact, the Minister of Tourism and Associate Finance Minister was in attendance.

This polypropylene plant will generate 65% fewer GHGs than average global plants. It also uses air cooling and not water cooling, which reduces water use by 80%. This facility will result in food packaging, textiles, health care products, medical supplies and more. Furthermore, it is able to reduce GHGs as it now has two carbon capture and storage units, and it is building a third, thus protecting the environment. It avoids shipping propane via truck, train and ship to overseas producers who will create the plastic beads that are shipped back to Canada. This reduces emissions and the risk of safety issues. Let us not forget that this government gave $49 million for this complex.

I would like to speak to Senate amendments 17 and 18, which would create new obligations for industries that use living organisms in their work.

The new obligations would require both the minister and the industry to conduct private consultations for each living organism produced in Canada. I am no laboratory scientist, but I was a regulator at an industry for many years before becoming a member of Parliament. One thing that I firmly believe, based on that experience, is that the industry should regulate itself. As soon as the government starts getting overly involved, things start getting complicated to the detriment of the industry and the taxpayer, due to the extra level of red tape and the inherent cost associated with it.

While there are areas of Bill S-5 that do cut red tape, which I am certainly supportive of, these particular amendments would do the opposite by creating a redundant process. In my view, the government should be focused on making things clearer and more straightforward through the removal of these extra, unnecessary steps, rather than adding more. We know that the bill is not much more than an effort to modernize bureaucracy rather than one that is focused on environment policy, so I am unsure as to why the government would want to increase the burden for the industry, which already does a world-class job with its public consultations.

Furthermore, this additional step would not do anything to improve the already stringent safety measures that are used by the industry today. Doing double the consultation does not equal double the safety or protection against harm. It would also have the potential to set a dangerous precedent for chemicals in general, which is something that is a major concern. Ultimately, we need to realize that there are existing regulatory processes and practices in place, and that the people who are best placed to carry out these practices are the experts, the industry.

The last part of the bill that I want to touch on is the provision that would allow for any person to request the minister assess whether a substance is capable of becoming toxic. I believe it is essential that all appropriate safety measures are taken with respect to substances, but I have serious concerns that this policy could open the door for hundreds if not thousands of requests given the wide scope of it.

This government has a dismal record when it comes to clearing backlogs, as I am sure many veterans who have been waiting years for their disability benefits could tell us. The last thing they need is yet another backlog to clear, which would also likely come with financial implications and cost to the taxpayer due to the need to hire more people to assist in processing these requests. It is a mess waiting to happen, and I strongly encourage that this measure be reconsidered so that we can avoid yet another bureaucratic nightmare.

The fact of the matter is that, while this government tries to convince everyone that it is the ultimate champion of Canada's environment, it has missed every single emissions target it has set, and has only hurt hard-working Canadians through ineffective policies such as the carbon tax. My constituents have zero trust left in this government's ability to make life better for them, so I do hope that the Liberals will listen to the feedback given on Bill S-5 and make the necessary changes for this piece of legislation to do the job it is intended to do.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep talking about this as though it is as a government bill. I would remind the member that the burgundy shade on the screen where it lists the name of the bill, along with the S in front of it, means that it came from the Senate. It is not a government bill.

Nonetheless, the way the Conservatives are approaching this is that as we have to use so many plastics nowadays, therefore we may as well give up and assume that plastics are inevitably going to be as abundant as they are now forever.

Yes, I am aware, and I am sure most people are aware of the fact that just about everything in this room has some degree of plastic in it, but does that mean that we cannot at least strive for a better world? If we know that plastics are so bad, that the very first plastic ever created is still in existence today, and the harm they are doing to our environment, why would we not at least try to do better? Why can we not at least look for ways to do things differently, even if it means that today we are still going to be using plastic? Why can we not look toward a future that has less plastic in it? Would the member not agree that is a good thing?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, knowing the level of knowledge this gentleman has, I am sure he is well aware of the fact that the original legislation was put forward by his government back in the last Parliament and that the Senate has proposed some amendments to it. The unfortunate part is that, although some of the amendments being proposed may have good steps, some of them do not, and those steps need to be taken as we move forward.

With respect to plastics, I would agree with the member if someone had the knowledge to come up with another product, but at the present time we are moving propane and other dangerous chemicals via ship, truck or train, and putting the lives of Canadians at risk when we could actually be producing it here in Canada. We can produce these nice wee pebbles that can be used to produce many products that we need, such as the parts we need for our vehicles, our new electric vehicles, or other items we have in this country.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that commonsensical speech.

I know how important health is to him. I know how much he wants to see his children, his grandchildren and perhaps, with luck, his great-grandchildren grow up and be happy in a world where their health is not constantly at risk.

In his speech, he talked about wording that is vague and, yes, some of it is vague.

What suggestions would he make in committee to tighten things up so the bill is clearer and can be implemented more quickly?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague on the government operations and estimates committee and what she brought to the committee.

She is right. I have two grandchildren, and I am so proud of them. My youngest grandchild is only four months old. I want to see them have something here as we move forward, and those are steps that need to be taken. That is what I think part of this legislation needs to have, and I love to hear comments on that from the Bloc and the member on the Liberal side who talked about working together. Those are the steps I think need to be done. We need to sit here, put those issues out there and banter back and forth, because that is what the public expects us to do and wants us to do.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. He is a good friend. I really appreciated working with him on OGGO when he was our previous chair.

I am really grateful that my colleague voted for my Motion No. 51 back in 2018 to tackle plastic pollution and reduce plastics in our environment. He supported the banning of straws and different plastics. Does he not agree that we have a duty to ensure that, when there are chemical ingredients that are known or suspected to cause cancer or harm the reproductive or endocrine systems, it should be mandatory to require the labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products, which is what we are calling for in this bill? Would he support an amendment to support that?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, we need to look at the aspect of plastics as we move forward. I agree that there are steps that can be used to utilize that, but it ultimately comes down to people doing the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the intervention that was made previously was interesting. I just heard a comment in one of the questions from somebody who is often heard in the House about how this is not somehow a government bill. I would just like to put on the record that the government's representative in the Senate moved this bill. It went through that process in the Senate with some amendments, some of which are concerning. I am certainly now glad to have the opportunity to enter into some fulsome debate.

Being that I represent what many, and even I, would refer to as oil country, many would suggest somehow that I do not care about the environment. In fact, those accusations have been made in this place. I would like to set the record straight on a number of fronts. I care deeply not only about our environment, but also about our planet's future. I would emphasize that by articulating a couple of things.

One is that I am the fifth generation to farm in Alberta's special areas. For those who listening, and I am sure there are many, who do not understand some of the dynamics around farming, if one does not take seriously the responsibility for conservation, environmental preservation, land management and soil management, one does not succeed in farming, let alone survive six generations. I know that I am proud every moment I have my kids come and ride with me in the combine or the tractor.

Second, the next thing I would like to articulate is something that many in this place, I have heard throughout the course of this debate, would suggest that supporting Canada's oil and gas industry is somehow oppositional to supporting a strong environment. In fact, a comment was made earlier about how supporting a plastics industry in this country is somehow oppositional to supporting a clean environment. I would like to articulate very clearly how that could not be further from the truth.

I am proud to represent an area, as I said, that has a strong legacy of oil and gas production, much of which goes into creating not only the fuel that powers the planes we fly in and the vehicles we drive but also so many of the things in our lives that include petrochemical-based products. The fact is that in Canada, we have good environmental legacy on that.

Something that needs to be pointed out is that, in Canada, we are the best at talking about why we have the emissions frameworks and all of those other things surrounding it, so we can not only talk about being good on the environment, but also know that we are good on the environment. So many places around the world refuse to even account properly for their impact on the planet, whether the impact is of emissions, ground contamination or a whole assortment of some of the challenges that come out as a result. We have much to be proud of in this country.

It frustrates me. I do not exaggerate when I say that I hear daily from many constituents who are frustrated by the left's attitude. That is the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Bloc and the Greens. I hear how frustrated many constituents are at the ignorance that is displayed toward the standards that we have in this country.

As we approach Bill S-5 and some of the concerns I have surrounding a number of the regulations, and further concerns about some of the amendments that were made in the Senate, we need to ensure that we are talking to the stakeholders involved and not have unintended consequences by passing legislation that would change regulatory frameworks, which may not have immediate consequences but could have long-term implications, and not just for Canadian industry. We need to ensure we understand all the aspects of that.

I am so proud of how my constituency has stepped up when it comes to being an environmental leader around the world. To emphasize that, Red Deer Polytechnic, formerly Red Deer College, has a team that included a former constituent of mine from Stettler. As I was walking into the debate here, my constituency assistant sent me an article talking about how this former constituent was a part of a team that had won an award for how they were able to reduce emissions in the production of things like solar panels.

I have numerous examples of how there have been emission reductions in the energy industry and world-class quality products in terms of water management, being able to take even tailings pond water and make it so pure that it could be used for drinking water. There are so many examples, including carbon capture, utilization and storage. The fact is that we can have even carbon-negative oil in this country.

The reality is, and I will end on this, the world simply needs more Canada, whether it is our resources, our ideas or the standards to which we accomplish so much. Whenever we talk about the environment, I am tired of having to apologize for the fact that I come from an area of the country that knows how to do energy and agriculture well, both of which by their very nature are offensive to many.

We do them well. In fact, I would suggest we do it the best in the world. It is time for us to be proud of that, and not only within this place, but to make sure that we take those lessons learned and promote them around the world. If we do so, Canada and the world wins.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to enter into debate in this place and stand up for the people of Battle River—Crowfoot. In the short amount of time I have left, I have some further points to make on Bill S-5, but I will note something that I hope the Speaker will give me a slight amount of leave to discuss, which is Hayden's Hopeful Journey.

This is the story of a young man from a community not far from my own who, even though he is just in grade 12, is facing his second battle with cancer. I had the honour this past weekend to participate in a perogy supper fundraiser, where we heard some stories about Hayden and the strength and resilience of this young man. Although he is facing something many people never face in their lifetime, he is doing so with determination and grit and with the support of the community through the perogy dinner fundraiser, an online auction that took place over the course of the preceding weeks and a GoFundMe page, where the true generosity of rural Alberta has been demonstrated.

I will take this moment in the House of Commons, wearing a green ribbon, to recognize Hayden's Hopeful Journey and Hayden Buswell. I acknowledge him and wish him all the best. My family's thoughts and prayers are with him as he battles this terrible disease.

I will wrap up a few points on Bill S-5, the bill before the House.

I dealt with a number of the overall aspects of what Bill S-5 would accomplish, but some of the concerns I have heard about this bill have less to do with the original text of the bill. Rather, they are about some of the amendments that came forward during the study that took place in the Senate.

Everyone watching will know that I represent an area of the country that is proud to have what I call two legacy industries. One is agriculture. The 53,000 square kilometres of rural east central Alberta that I represent has a proud history of being incredibly productive for agriculture in its many forms. Further to that, the second legacy industry that I talk often about is the energy industry. Bills that have a direct and indirect impact on both of those fields certainly make a significant impact on how we approach many of these issues.

Having heard much of the debate that has taken place on Bill S-5, I think it needs to get before the committee so we can study the specifics. In the moment I have left, I will note how important it will be to examine the amendments that were made in the Senate. I have heard from constituents and a number of stakeholders who have expressed some concerns that the unintended consequences of some of the amendments made by the other place may have a negative effect on both our economy and the environment.

I look forward to being able to expand further on this in questions. I am thankful for this opportunity.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his emotional tribute to Hayden. I know everyone in the House joins with him in wishing Hayden well and a speedy recovery.

I thought I heard the hon. member say that he was very interested in the amendments coming from the other place and looking at them more thoroughly. I wonder if he supports speedily getting this bill to our environment committee, which I serve on, by the way, with him, to look at these amendments more closely.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will certainly pass along the best wishes to Hayden and his family.

I am not sure I have had a chance to expound in this place on my new role as vice-chair of the committee on the environment. I am very excited to be able to stand up for the people of Battle River—Crowfoot in that role.

I find it interesting and ironic that whenever a bill comes before the House and seems to be debated at any length, not even an extended period of time, the automatic response of any member of the government is that the only path forward is that of no debate or that we are being obstructionists. I hear from constituents daily, and I am not exaggerating when I say “daily”, that they expect me, as their member of Parliament, to take a serious look at every aspect of the legislation that comes before this place and to take the time necessary to do the job we were all elected to do: to study, consider and debate bills in the House of Commons. If the bill passes with the will of Parliament, I look forward to being able to look at it more in depth at the committee stage of the process.

Just because the government does not want to spend time doing a fundamental aspect of its job does not mean the Conservatives do not. I find it incredibly demeaning to the democratic process that they—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government widely promoted this bill as a modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that would finally grant people a right to a healthy environment. When the government gave a briefing on its bill, civil servants were asked if the bill would truly give a right to a healthy environment. Their response was simply “no”, that will not be the case. It might happen when legislation is implemented more than two years from now, but for the time being, it will not.

Does the member agree with me that it is unfortunate that the Liberal Party is engaging in political marketing with this right to a healthy environment when, in fact, that will not happen when the bill is passed?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member highlights an important point. I have said often that the only thing the Liberals are good at is politics. They have shown time and time again that they are failures when it comes to policy, implementation and ultimately governing this country.

When it comes to their record on the environment, it is deplorable. They have never met a target. They have missed virtually every emissions target they have ever implemented. They have a tax plan, not an environment plan, and are quick to demonize anybody who points out the facts in this regard.

Canadians should have the right to a healthy environment, but that includes being able to ensure we have an industry and technology that allow for that to not only be the case here in Canada. Canada can and should be a leader in the world when it comes to ensuring that the entire planet has the tools, resources and ability to have a healthy environment.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate hearing my colleague speak today about some very important points to his constituents, particularly wishing Hayden the best.

This bill would take up what was a temporary trial experiment in regard to chemical management, put forward by the Hon. Rona Ambrose under Mr. Harper. There were a number of amendments made by the Senate without having any practical knowledge of it.

Does the member think the system that was developed has stood the test of time? Does he believe those changes require proper study before amending the bill?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will pass along the best wishes to Hayden and his family from this place.

I think we have highlighted again that it is absolutely essential for us to do our jobs in this place. The member points out that Conservatives have a strong history and legacy of good environmental management and protection, and of acknowledging the complicated way that has to be accomplished. Certainly, when it comes to committee, we need to make sure we look at the amendments the Senate made and the full subject of the bill to ensure we get it right, because jobs and our environment depend on it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This brings us to the end of the 20-minute speeches. We are now down to the 10-minute speeches. Therefore, I would like to recognize for debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, what a great privilege it is always to rise on behalf of my constituents. It is just too bad I missed my opportunity to be recognized to speak for a 20-minute slot now that we have moved past the first five hours of debate.

It is always a privilege to be speaking on behalf of my constituents and rising to share some of their views. On this legislation, it is a bit more difficult. It is an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, which then reminds me of a Yiddish proverb.

I will save members the Yiddish pronunciation, but it is that a man studies until he is 70 and he dies a fool. I am always gratified to learn of new things that I do not know. Oftentimes, as parliamentarians, we need to be reminded how much we do not know both by our constituents, but also by reviewing legislation such as this. If they had asked me before I was first elected back in 2015 if this type of legislation was on the books, I would have said I did not know.

Therefore, I want to offer up a bit of history on how we have come to this point where we are modernizing this act. From the outset, while I do have quite a bit of concern with the contents of the legislation, different parts of it and how we have come to this point, I will be supporting it. The Yiddish proverb is a reminder that there is always more to learn and I am always learning more about what the legislation says.

One key that I have heard from constituents in the past is about beauty products. I have a lot of constituents in my riding who are entrepreneurs and they run smaller, unique-product companies. They were specifically worried about toxic substances. Toxicity, of course, is primarily based around how much of the substance there actually is, and we should keep that in mind. This legislation would split the list of toxic substances into two schedules: one with the highest risk to health and environment; and two, lower risk but still regulated.

Some of the other things the legislation proposes to do is mostly to reduce red tape. A lot of different stakeholder organizations and industry sectors are quite supportive of this. They would have less paperwork to fill out. It would be a more streamlined process. Again, reducing redundancies and unnecessary red tape, or paperasse as they call it in French, is necessary. Especially nowadays when people have so much opportunity to use digital methods of delivering services and informing government regulators, it is an opportunity to do that.

With respect to the process of how we got here, it has taken five years for the government to get to the point where it is offering up these modernizations in Bill S-5. This government legislation came through the Senate, which is the complete reverse of how this place is supposed to work. The House of Commons is supposed to consider legislation and send it to that other place, the Senate, to then do sober second thought. Now we are doing the complete reverse.

Bill S-5 should have come to us as government legislation from the government benches so we could consider it here first. Because that work was not done in the House of Commons, the senators did it. They passed 24 amendments, and I have concerns with many of those amendments. The legislation would be made worse through these amendments. If we amend Bill S-5, it would go back to the Senate for reconsideration, and it will go back and forth.

During this debate, I have heard several government caucus members say that they want to expedite this bill. They are worried that the bill is not going through the process fast enough. Of course, any one of us here is allowed to rise on behalf of our constituents and try to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to speak to the legislation on behalf of our constituents. After five years of waiting to get to the point where the Liberals are and then claiming that it needs to be expedited, knowing full well that a single amendment passed at the environment committee or at report stage by the House would send the bill back to the Senate, is a dishonest way of going about the debate. With respect to claiming that opposition parties are delaying it, debate is not delaying. Debate is careful consideration of government legislation.

There are many amendments with which I have problems. Maybe I will spend just a bit of time on the preamble question, because it has been crowed about quite a bit by government caucus members that a right to the environment is being inserted into law. Some opposition members outside the Conservative Party have mentioned the fact that it is not an actual right to have a healthy environment.

In fact, that portion in the modernization of the act is being inserted in the preamble. During his intervention on this legislation, the member for Dufferin—Caledon reminded the House that when it is in the preamble, it is often not considered by justices, by judges, if a matter comes before the court. Placing it is in the preamble essentially means that it is just something one reads ahead of time, but it is not the substance of the legislation.

The government's claim, after five years of this “consultocracy” that it has set up, is that we now we have to expedite it through the House of Commons and quickly get it to committee. Then at committee, I am sure the members will say the same thing, that they need to get it quickly through committee in order to get it back to the House to be considered, and probably with no amendments. We saw that the Senate had a substantial amount of amendments to the legislation. However, it has been moving at a glacial speed, and it is not the job of the House of Commons to act like a slot machine.

We do not just roll in government legislation, either from the Senate or the floor of the House, and then expect members to say yes to everything and pass it on to the next stage. There are members here who can weigh-in on the legislation. There are Conservatives members who are professional engineers, such as the member for Sarnia—Lambton. She has expertise in this material and she can share that with the House. There are members who were, in their previous lives, builders. There are members who, in their previous lives, worked for chemical companies. They can all make a contribution here. Also, we come from different ridings where we have major industrial energy projects, major mines being built or are operating, which can provide insight into how legislation like this should function, and that insight should come to the floor of the House of Commons.

I will also mention on this preamble component that the Liberals are adding for a healthy environment, which is something that is completely unenforceable. They say they cannot define it further and will need another two years to figure out what it means. Therefore, not only are we being told that we have to rush the legislation through, probably without amendment after the work of the Senate, but that they will take another two years to figure out the substance of the communication on the legislation. Essentially, it is a modernization and reduction of red tap and not actually an environmental piece of legislation.

We have seen this before. The carbon tax, for example, is not an environmental plan but a tax plan. Also, the cut on taxes for the middle class actually resulted in every member of Parliament earning a bigger tax cut than a Canadian who was not in a middle income bracket. Actually, anybody earning less than $43,000 got nothing from the government in that tax cut. To get the full tax cut, one had to earn the full $93,000 to be at the top end of that middle-income tax bracket.

The Liberals do this all the time. They claim one thing in legislation, which is actually something completely different, and then after many years of consulting, they say that things must be expedited through the House to have the legislation pass. I have seen it happen many times before.

I would rate this legislation as a C-, but it has given me an opportunity to go back to my Yiddish proverb. It has also given me an opportunity to look at legislation about which constituents of mine do care. They want a healthy environment. They want to know that toxic substances are being reviewed and considered, and that there is some type of goal post in place for different industries and entrepreneurs to look at before they decide what to put into their products and how they make their products.

At the same time, they do not want more years of consulting after the fact. They do not want framework legislation; they want legislation and enforcement that works, that is reasonable and that is not over the top. We are not trying to manage the economy, we are trying to be good stewards of the economy, and legislation like this is trying to reach that point. We always have an opportunity to learn something new, and that was the Yiddish proverb, that a man studies until he is 70 and dies a fool. It is a reminder to all of us that there is always something new to learn.

My offering to the Liberals is that they can learn something new through the legislation they are now trying to rush through the House. The 24 amendments they received from senators, and some of them made the legislation worse, is a reminder that legislation should start in this place. They should consult more with the House of Commons and members of Parliament before they bring forward legislation like this.

Despite that, I will be supporting the legislation to get it to committee so that, hopefully, we can fix it there and make further amendments, which will then further delay the bill. However, that is not our fault. We are here for the people to ensure we pass legislation that makes sense for them.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech.

Strengthening environmental protection is a good thing. We are not against virtue. However, based on what my colleague said earlier, I am wondering whether this is just wishful thinking. Is there not something else we could focus on to ensure a healthy environment after this bill is passed?

What commitments could the Conservatives make to improve the environment for all of their constituents?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, as an MP from Alberta and as an Albertan, I would say that we have environmental regulations governing the largest industrial companies operating the biggest projects in our province. When it comes to legislating and regulating our province's biggest corporations, we are leading the way.

The rest of Canada could follow our lead on things like ethane and methane. For large industrial projects, we have very strict rules governing gas emissions. We have also had a price on greenhouse gas production for a very long time for our province's major oil industry producers.

Anyone can come to our province and ask us questions. Our public servants are excellent; their excellence is world-renowned. All this information is available online, and I encourage the member to come to Alberta and see it for herself if she wants.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing the way the Conservatives are looking at this legislation, legislation to protect and provide support to Canadians, that deals with the environment. Stakeholders from coast to coast to coast are quite anxious to see the legislation move forward. The Conservatives are using the excuse of wanting more time to debate it. They will say that about anything in order to filibuster.

We are constantly having to look for partners to get bills through. We are not trying to say that debate should absolutely and completely end today. If the Conservatives are in support of the legislation, why not allow it to go to committee stage? Why do they have to talk out every bill in order to frustrate the legislative process?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a rich argument from the member for Winnipeg North, who has probably spoken more words in the House than any other member. I dare say that perhaps he has spoken more than his entire caucus combined possibly. Maybe we should add the member for Kingston and the Islands.

This is the place where consultation happens with the citizens of our country. The House of Commons, through its members of Parliament, are representatives of the people. We will do our job.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was an interesting speech by the member from Calgary, as always. I will have to add the word “consultocracy” to my vocabulary.

He mentioned how unenforceable the law would be. The CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, has been on the books since 1999, and it has never been enforced in any way.

Could he perhaps give us some ideas on how we should make it enforceable? Canadians deserve to live in a clean and healthy environment and we need to be able to enforce that.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, just to be clear with the member, I said that the right to a healthy environment, as it is embedded and updated in the legislation, is unenforceable because it is in the preamble. It gives no force of law, essentially. Someone cannot go to court and make a claim before a judge that this is somehow an enforceable right. It is not in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not a right that someone can make a claim against.

In terms of enforceability, this is already enforced in the industry. The industry in Canada is already trying to meet these expectations. This legislation will impact hundreds of thousands of people who work across the different sectors. All of them are trying to do the right thing by the environment and also by their community members. Nobody is out there with the goal of polluting unnecessarily or of dropping toxic chemicals into the environment. They know this legislation exists and they are trying to meet its expectations, but inserting it into the preamble is what makes it unenforceable.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to hear the debate here so far today. Part of that is addressing an important new bill before Parliament, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.

These are important environmental considerations for Parliament to consider. It would be updating a bill that was initially passed, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, back in 1999 and it is well past due. I understand from my colleague, although I did not know this before he spoke in the House today, that it has been five years since this bill has been under review. Five years is a long time.

The past five years were interrupted by two elections, one of which was completely unnecessary and changed the entire legislative agenda so that we could not address these things in ample time here in this place. We are supposed to be looking at legislation in Canada and how we can do better at what is on the agenda.

This bill, as my colleague pointed out, came over to us initially after it was passed at the Senate with many amendments. In this case, we seem to be the chamber of sober second thought on what has been brought to us as an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

All Canadians want a strong Canadian Environmental Protection Act to make sure that the substances that are transmitted in society have some very clear guidelines around how they are going to be approved by the regulatory process.

Make no mistake: There are good things about this bill that I support. I hope to get into some committee work and go through the detail here on some changes that are required. Some of the changes would be undoing some of the amendments that were put in place in the Senate, which actually served to move this legislation backward as opposed to forward.

What does work in this bill is getting rid of some of the redundancy in regulations. In the House, I have spoken many times about the weight of government and the weight of regulations. There is overlap not only between different levels of government, as in provinces, municipalities and the federal government, but also within the government itself. We have a combination of looking at the same regulations through various departments.

It is a waste of time, a waste of money and a waste of effort for the companies that have to go through that process. Dealing with those in one fell swoop, as this legislation seems to propose, is a better way of getting past regulations that industry has to go through in order to move things forward.

I will point out that I have been involved in bills in the House of Commons where we did expedite things very clearly. I remember my work with the previous minister of natural resources in the 43rd Parliament when we moved forward on the regulatory advancements required for offshore work to regulate workers and make sure they stayed safe.

This was work that had been delayed for years. As a result, for the offshore workers in Canada, primarily in Newfoundland but also Nova Scotia, the regulations were not on top of each other anymore, and there was a legal void as to what would happen in an accident.

The minister at that time, who was a very good minister, worked together with me behind the scenes and made sure that we advanced that as quickly as possible. We got it through the House and over to the other place. I stand corrected; it actually came from the other place. We got it through the House as quickly as possible, through committee, because we had addressed everything that needed to be addressed in that legislation. Not having that legislation available at that time was putting workers at risk.

When things need to move quickly in the House, we move them quickly. Our job is to make sure we look at what is best for Canadians and address what needs to be changed in legislation brought before us.

I am going to talk about this legislation a bit because there are some clear deficiencies. There are some good things, as I have noted, in this bill, and we do need an updated Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This also brings changes to other legislation. There are some things I have questions about. I question a lot of the bureaucratese that we address here in the House of Commons.

The language in the bill identifies certain things that I know are going to require further definition down the road. Those are things like “vulnerable populations”. Can we define what a vulnerable population is? I have not seen it prescribed anywhere in legalese.

It talks about “the principle of non-regression and the principle of intergenerational equity”. All of these things are nice concepts on paper. As yet, they have no standing in any court of law, because they have not been in front of any court of law. That is one of the problems here.

We can put these things on paper and then, all of a sudden, somebody will actually challenge them and they will be in front of a judge. As my colleague said earlier, a judge does not get to look at the preamble of a bill. He only looks at the bill. He says, “This intergenerational equity thing is something profound, and here is the ruling I have.”

That, of course, will layer its way up to every court in Canada. Then we will have a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on what is meant by intergenerational equity, to say nothing of the intergenerational inequity that the current government has visited upon Canadians repeatedly over the last seven years. The amount of deficit that we have incurred with the government foisting taxes upon future generations of Canadians is the definition of intergenerational inequity. Our kids, our grandkids and our great-grandkids are going to be looking after bills that the government refuses to pay today.

Those are things that are going to have to find their way through in the wash. It is better that we find those things in the wash here than 10 years later after several court iterations and several millions of dollars through our court system. We would have to reverse everything that has been done over that time.

We talked about toxicity in this bill. I recall, not so long ago, that they talked about plastics being toxic. I know that the plastics industry was very upset about that. I used Tupperware last night. I used a baggy this morning.

Is that toxic? Am I using toxic goods? I think that we really have to get toward what toxicity actually means for the communities that we are acting on behalf of. A watch-list for these substances becomes capable of being overused and misunderstood by the bureaucrats and the legalists who might get involved with it.

There are other definitions in here, like “the right to a healthy environment”. I am all for a healthy environment. Everyone knows that. How we put that into a right, as far as Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is a mystery to me.

I know that a lot of my colleagues think a healthy environment looks like a golf course and that is not at all the case. A healthy environment is actually something where we have a whole bunch of bugs, if we will. We start at the very basic level here, and things move their way through the ecosystem. Sometimes nature, in its healthy environment phase, is not pretty.

If we take a look at the agriculture we produce in Canada, that agriculture, quite frankly, is a manipulation of nature. If we look at this, somebody could challenge it and could say that is making the environment unhealthy. We are plowing fields and that is killing a whole bunch of moles, voles, insects, birds, nests and everything else in order to feed the world, which Canada does very well.

I am challenged by some of the terminology that is in here. We need to balance all of this against social and economic factors. We need to make sure that we have risk assessments and risk management profiles that show exactly what we are trying to accomplish and balance it with what is good for all of society.

One of the other issues in here that we have seen in regulatory overreach, which we have seen in many government bills in their regulatory approach, is the ability for anybody to request that a minister look to see if a substance is toxic.

There are all kinds of nuances going on in our court system currently in Canada where that is being abused by many organizations that are trying to stall developments in Canada. This opens the door to more of the same.

Once we start opening the door to more of the same in every measure of society, we are going to have nothing but litigation from self-interested entities all the way through our legal system. That is what has to stop. That is what has to move forward a little better here to make sure that we get better legislation for all Canadians. Those are my main points.

I am looking forward to the government considering how we can make some good recommendations and good amendments so that this bill, the terms around it and the definitions that we are talking about are addressed clearly, so that we can address good legislation for Canadians going forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. The Conservatives are criticizing the government because the Senate is assisting us on some very important legislation. However, Stephen Harper had no problem doing the same thing. In fact, he even brought forward environmental legislation through the Senate. When Conservatives talk about the use of the Senate being incorporated into our legislative agenda, they need to reflect while looking in the mirror.

The legislation we have before us has been here since February, through the Senate. It passed through the Senate in June. We introduced it long ago. If every member speaks on the legislation, it would never pass. When would the Conservative Party want to see legislation such as this pass? Why not allow it to pass into committee where stakeholders and other MPs could contribute to the debate and discussion?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not recall criticizing the government for moving this agenda through the Senate.

First, I said that this time we in the House of Commons are the body of sober second thought. I know that, for my colleague on that side, it might be second thought. We are trying to be sober here and to make sure we actually put some analysis into this, and not just ram it through like my colleague on the other side would like us to do.

I am a member of the environment committee. I know where this is going to end up. It is going to be on my desk. I have already put some effort into looking at this bill and how we could address the changes that would be required going forward. We are going to make sure that we get this bill. I would challenge the member: If it took five years to get here, why does he think jamming it through here in 10 minutes would be appropriate? I think we need to address these things.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to add some comments to the member's concerns around how this idea of the right for Canadians to live in a healthy and clean environment would be approached.

In this bill that we are debating today, Bill S-5, the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act would only extend those rights as far as the bill goes. It would basically be around toxins, air pollution and water pollution. The federal government has a wider mandate than that. We have a lot of environmental legislation on the books, including the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act.

Would the member agree that we need to extend that right to the entire federal mandate?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my colleague with whom I sat on committee in the last Parliament. He always has some excellent input into the manner in which we need to move legislation forward.

Let me say that this whole issue around a clean and healthy environment is a great concept, and I fully subscribe to it. At the same time, I look at this nonsense that I hear in the House from members in the House, and not the member in question here, and I need to make sure that we have clarity on what we are trying to accomplish. I have heard many times, at committee and in the House, about how emissions from oil and gas, for instance, are actually limiting people's lifespans. However, when we look at the increasing lifespan of Canadians, it is significant.

We have actually done very well with the lower cost of energy and lower emissions in this country. I want to make sure we continue on that, and that as Canadians' lifespans continue to increase we get better and expect more from our legislation around how we treat Canadians. That is what I am after here.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly very concerned that this bill not be rushed through. I agree with him insofar as that comment. This is a very complex bill. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a very long act in six parts. The government has chosen not to review or update part 6 at all, which deals with marine dumping and genetically modified organisms. That section needs attention but will be outside the scope of the act for parliamentarians to review, unless the government steps up and says we need to modernize this section as well.

I am also concerned about protecting this bill from court challenges. We need to put back in the list of toxic substances, schedule 1.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns about how we get things done in the House and about making sure we address legislation quickly.

One of the issues in this bill of course is that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a criminal act, so we are moving a lot of redresses here toward a criminal approach to things, with a lower bar, a more civil law bar, for how those are approached, so we are impacting two sets of laws here that might not serve Canadian society well. These are some of the things we have to consider in this, and I am open to everything my colleague has to say about how we can make this better.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise on Bill S-5.

Five years ago, at the environment committee, as a parliamentary staffer, I took part in the extensive review that took place, I believe, in 2017. Indeed, the committee members at the time looked at the whole scope of this legislation, and I hope to provide some insight from my time on that committee during my remarks today.

While I am in support of Bill S-5 in the fact that it deals with the right to a healthy environment and some of the critical issues included in CEPA 1999, I would be remiss if I did not mention a juxtaposition of things happening in British Columbia at the moment.

Right now, we have a government that is purportedly concerned about the impacts of toxic substances on our lives, on our health and on the health of infants most importantly. Just yesterday I went to IKEA with my family and bought some new furniture. I know that furniture is subject to many of the schedule 1 toxic substances list, and those toxic chemicals are applied in the production and manufacturing of almost all consumer goods that we use in Canada. At the same time, though, the government has decided this year to decriminalize the use of fentanyl, which is killing hundreds, if not thousands of people every single year in my province.

Why do we care so much, on the one hand, about the application of CEPA 1999 and amending it to keep our communities safe from toxic substances, when at the same time the Government of Canada is effectively legalizing the use of a toxic substance that is killing people every day on the streets of Vancouver and throughout British Columbia?

Earlier in the debate today, a number of people spoke to the fact that the bill before us today does not address the full scope of changes that are needed to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I would generally agree with this assumption and the concern put forward by members on all sides of the House. For example, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is complicated legislation, overlaps and works in conjunction with other pieces of legislation that determine how we use products and substances in our day-to-day life, one example being the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. In the last number of years, we have seen a huge influx of electric vehicles coming into the marketplace. I think it would benefit consumers in Canada if we had updated standards on the use of the batteries, for example, that are used in these cars, and the impact it could have on the environment when they reach the end of their life cycle and have to be recycled.

Another example of things we could have been discussing is living organisms or biotechnology. I know many of my constituents are concerned about genetically modified organisms. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the law that deals with such substances. We have not seen a major update despite major advancements in the technology regarding the products, food and even vaccines that we might ingest into our bodies that could be impacted by such provisions.

A big one is preventing water pollution from nutrients. One of the things the Department of Environment and Climate Change wanted to see addressed in 2016, when we went through the review, was the labelling of products such as bleach or other household goods that we use on a regular basis. We need to know the impact those products have when we put them down the drain, and what might happen off the coast of Victoria, for example, when they are dumped directly into the ocean. We need our Canadian Environmental Protection Act to be updated to know what we are putting into the ocean and the impact it has on marine life, especially in British Columbia.

As other members have mentioned, Bill S-5 does nothing to address marine pollution. I would be remiss if I did not ask why the government would not address that, because it is in the process of hiring hundreds of new people to work at Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada on a marine protection plan for the Pacific coast. How in the world could it not update CEPA to work in conjunction with the billions of dollars it is purportedly spending on protecting B.C.'s coasts? It has the opportunity right here in the House of Commons.

Another big thing we could have done to address the environment is related to preventing pollution from the transboundary movement of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material. One of my colleagues from Simcoe, the secondary breadbasket of Canada, put forward a bill to try to update some aspects of CEPA as it relates to recycled goods. We have so many goods on which we could a better job of making sure they are dealt with in a respectful way.

We also need to be very careful, and CEPA could be doing this, to look at the importation of goods and whether they meet Canadian standards. An updated CEPA could give consumers more confidence in the products they are using if the government had the courage to do the hard work of updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Another key aspect of CEPA that could have been addressed is preventing and responding to emergencies. This is particularly important to the people of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. One of the provisions that Environment and Climate Change Canada asked for in the last review in 2017 was to allow for field research related to environmental emergencies, and for exemptions for urgent, time-sensitive issues of national security and remedial provisions. This was really relevant to my riding when it had to replace so many culverts as it related to fish-bearing streams. There were so many applications to our environmental laws in the context of an emergency that could have been addressed if the government wanted to do the hard work.

Another area the government could have addressed, which is probably the fifth or sixth already, is environmental protection related to federal activities on aboriginal lands. Aboriginal lands and reserves, in many cases, are not subject to provincial environmental laws, and we do not know about the application of federal laws or the overlay of the two jurisdictions. We could have used this opportunity in respect of UNDRIP. Instead of just talking about UNDRIP, we could have taken the concrete administrative step of improving the application of environmental laws or their administration in the context of aboriginal lands.

Another area we could have looked at is strengthening the enforcement of CEPA. Since the review that took place in 2017, the Government of Canada went through a major process with Volkswagen Canada. Volkswagen was not following the laws in Canada related to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and was not reporting on the emissions from certain vehicles. In the United States, there were billions of dollars in lawsuits after this. In Canada, our enforcement of environmental laws is much weaker. We could have used this opportunity to strengthen the enforcement of environmental protection in Canada.

Another area we could have looked at that I briefly touched upon is facilitating intergovernmental co-operation. We have a large bureaucracy in Canada. There is lots of red tape. There is overlapping jurisdiction and there are overlapping laws. Updating CEPA could have clarified how federal, provincial and territorial laws work in the context of equivalency in the administration of environmental protection in Canada.

We could have looked very closely at encouraging public participation, moving administrative barriers to allow more citizens to participate and bring petitions forward to the minister of environment, which is a very key aspect of the bill on issues of concern. We could have clarified how that would work in the Canadian context.

Finally, the preamble in Bill S-5 talks extensively about protecting the right to a healthy environment. Unfortunately, the government seems to punt all the hard work down the road. Why did it not clarify the legal definition of “a right to a healthy environment” instead of giving our public servants two years to determine the definition? We have a responsibility in committee and in this chamber to do that hard work now, not leave it for down the road. It is a failure of the government not to define “a right to a healthy environment” instead of just punting it down the road.

I could go on. I am quite dismayed that the Government of Canada did not do the hard work that many of its members put forward in recommendations. Unfortunately, it is too afraid to do that hard work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, within the legislation there is a significant move forward in recognizing that Canadians have rights with respect to the environment. In good part, I think the legislation is seen as a very strong, positive foot forward.

Does the member have any sense of when he would like to see the legislation go to committee, where we can have more direct input from stakeholders and others and get into some of the things the member talked about in his speech? When can we start having that dialogue at the committee stage?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is the government's prerogative to determine what we debate and how long we debate matters in the House of Commons. I will note that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is very complicated legislation that touches upon most aspects of our day-to-day lives. That requires significant debate and study of the very challenging and difficult issues that are brought forward in this legislation, which affect everything from imports and exports and consumer product awareness to the cumulative impacts of toxic substances on our lives. That requires a lot of time in the chamber.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a consistent issue the Conservatives will bring up is that all pieces of legislation require a considerable amount of time and there should not be any sorts of limitations and so forth. We have substantive legislation that is fairly widely supported, and as far as I know even the Conservative Party is supporting the passage of this legislation, so it seems everyone in the chamber is supporting the legislation. My concern is that there are all sorts of other things we could be looking at.

I have a very straightforward question. Are Conservative Party members saying they would like to pass it out of second reading this year? Are they saying we should wait, because they have so many speakers that we might need to take it into 2023? Can the member give Canadians a sense of how long he would like to see this in second reading?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think so far we have debated this bill, in real terms, for less than 20 hours. When we are talking about a bill that may impact every consumer product in Canada, we need more than 20 hours of debate. The implications of an amendment to CEPA of the magnitude put forward by the government and supported by the Conservatives require more than half a week's worth of work.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from British Columbia for raising this. It almost seems like the government believes that if all parties agree, there is no process or no point in having members of Parliament go through the legislation. This is complex legislation; it touches upon criminal law, and there are going to be different parts of the country that are going to be affected differently.

Does the member believe the parliamentary secretary seems to be one-sided, so that only one person, either him or the Prime Minister, should be in charge of everything, or does he believe we have a Parliament for a reason, which is to raise issues and to debate different aspects of the legislation?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing I pointed out at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was the tendency of the government to only put up one or two speakers, who happen to be the same person, on a regular basis. What that does to debate is it minimizes it. I would love to see every member of the Liberal backbench standing up and asking for a slot to speak to this important legislation.

As my colleague mentioned, every single member of Parliament is impacted by this legislation in a very real way. There are perhaps trillions of dollars at stake here. There are consequences related to how we consume products, what products are put into our oceans and how babies are protected from toxic substances. That requires more than a couple of hours of debate, and it is incumbent upon every single member to speak up and apply this legislation to how it impacts their respective constituencies. I do not know why the Government of Canada just does not want to do that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege and an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Red Deer—Mountain View, and it certainly is to do so today, as we are talking about a bill that is promoting the right to a healthy environment. I 100% agree with that. My major issue is recognizing Canadian achievements and making sure we keep that in mind as well.

As we debate Bill S-5, which would make these changes, I think it is important, as has been mentioned before, that we recognize the fact that CEPA has not been updated since it was passed in 1999. The tabling of Bill S-5 would be the first significant update, so it is important.

However, after the Senate process, Bill S-5 has been amended greatly, and I must admit, it is not for the best. I think it is important we talk about some of the Liberal track record. For example, I understand what is being advocated for in the dark green environmentalist world, but in the real world, particularly in those countries where energy security is so important and so urgent, people are clamouring for clean natural gas. They are rethinking their previous nuclear and coal objections. They are recognizing their electrical grid limitations, and they are hoping countries like us, with a reputation of using our wealth, expertise and innovation, will be there to help them during these tumultuous times.

For the more than two billion people in this world who use animal dung for their energy, and for those countries that are forced to rely on conflict oil, will Canada use every bit of its energy know-how to bring all of our resources to their shores? Does the government have a real vision for the future where the mining and processing of rare earth minerals, our world-class reclamation expertise and our human rights records will be recognized and respected, or when the time comes, will those too be politically demonized?

All energy sources leave an environmental footprint, even the dung being used by 25% of the world's citizens for energy. We do not flood massive tracts of land for eternity for hydro power without consequences. We do not build massive windmills without using hydrocarbons. We do not build solar panels without dealing with toxic substances. We do not mine or drill oil wells without disturbance. Plus, we need energy to build each of these infrastructures, and I believe that when we discuss any energy source development, its transportation and use, its recycling and disposal, or its effect on the living things that surround it, we must analyze the entire upstream and downstream effects, from the first shovel digging it up to the last shovel covering it up.

Only then can we truly talk about the consequences of all these technologies, of EVs, hydrogen, hybrid ICE, and full battery production, repurposing and recycling. Only then will Canadians be able to make educated decisions about the energy options faced by this nation. If we take the political science out of this equation and focus specifically on the true metrics of these choices, we will have accomplished so much.

The question is if the government will ensure that, in future, all types of energy sources be subject to the same rigorous assessment as the government has demanded with Canada's hydrocarbon industry. I certainly hope it will.

I would like to take a few moments to discuss what the legislation would do and then look at the few amendments from the Senate that I have issues with.

Bill S-5 recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment, and it would require the Government of Canada to protect that right. I will come back to one of these, as I have some comments on this. Second, Bill S-5 would add language to CEPA to highlight the government's commitment to implementing UNDRIP and to recognize the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing the toxicity of substances. Third, it would create a regime for highest risk substances. This would replace the list of toxic substances.

Fourth, it lays out a criterion for the government to look to for managing and regulating a substance. Next, Bill S-5 would require the ministers to develop and publish a plan specifying which substances should be given priority for assessing whether they are toxic or can become toxic. Bill S-5 would also ensure all new substances must be developed in 24 months if a substance is determined to be toxic.

The bill also streamlines risk assessment for drugs and removes redundancies in regulations. That I am a fan of. Finally, Bill S-5 allows any person to request a minister to assess whether a substance can become toxic.

We know that this legislation looked dramatically different when it was first tabled in the Senate. Some of our unelected colleagues in the other place have a habit of gerrymandering legislation to suit their own agendas. They have done so with the current vision of Bill S-5. In any event, there are significant concerns about certain amendments passed in the Senate, which I will be addressing.

The Senate passed 24 amendments, 11 of which I think are detrimental to the bill and industry. For example, plastic manufacturing items are now listed in schedule 1, part 2, of substances that need to be regulated. I cannot imagine our friends in the plastic industry are very happy about that. Plastics are used in medical devices and medical supplies, such as tubing, and in dentistry and surgeries. They are used in automobiles, cell phones and thousands of other items used daily. Common sense is required here.

I mentioned that I would circle back to the right to a healthy environment. While the Senate has added language here around mechanisms to support the protection of that right and reasonable limits, I feel this is premature and too prescriptive. It could predetermine certain elements of consultations with stakeholders. Furthermore, the ambiguous nature of this language will spur new litigation and impact the way that CEPA is enforced. The government would be wise to clear up the language on this, as the right does only apply to CEPA, and it is not a charter right.

The next amendments I have issues with are amendments 17 and 18, which pertain to living organisms. When I was the vice-chair of the environment committee, I heard from concerned industry stakeholders that this provision creates a new obligation for industries that use living organisms to hold public consultations with the minister for each new living organism developed in Canada. Not a lot of people understand what these living organisms are all about. They are environmentally responsive. They are cells. They are changeable in growth. They are reproductive. They have a complex chemistry, and they have a homeostasis with energy processing. Those are the sorts of things that we are speaking of.

The potential for theft of intellectual property is vast here. If I were involved in this, and if my competitors required that we hold public consultations, and they are developing an organism in my space, why would I invest in research and development when it can be taken from the public consultations and tweaked slightly? I have heard from industry about the chilling effect this would have on research and development in Canada and in investment and industry in Canada. This will set a dangerous precedent for chemicals.

The next amendments that I have concern over are amendments 9 and 15, relating to schedule 1, part 1. By replacing substances that pose the highest risk language, and reference to schedule 1, part 1, the Senate has added more rigid language. Removing the words “highest risk” makes enforcement of this provision unclear. Although the right is not yet defined, and challenges exist there, the government will have up to two years after this bill passes to figure out what that right means to stakeholders.

I will be supporting the bill, but I would like to see my colleagues at the environment committee return the bill to its original state or get as close as we can. I think this is one of the critical issues that we all have to be concerned about.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member said in his conclusions that he will be supporting the bill. I appreciate the fact that the Conservatives, like the New Democrats and the Bloc Party, as I understand it, will be supporting the legislation.

The previous question I asked one of his colleagues was on how the Conservative Party seems determined to continue debate at second reading. I had posed this question: Would it like to see this legislation passed out of second reading in 2022, or is it looking at 2023?

Does the Conservative Party have any idea as to when it would actually like to see the legislation go forward, given the fact that it supports the bill and there is a lot of work and a lot of interest to try to start the committee process?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, lots of times in politics one only takes part of the sentence that was presented. I said I would be supporting the bill and wanting to see my colleagues at the environment committee return it back to its original state or get it as close as we can. That basically means that all of these amendments I mentioned are the reason we need to do that.

Of course, if we are going to discuss why that is important, that is the purpose of the House. I am sure the member did not mean to take my comment out of context, but certainly that is the reason it is important for us to be able to continue this discussion.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, in Quebec, in 2022, a motion was passed affirming Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Will he support the Bloc Québécois in its efforts to ensure that there is no interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, interference with industries in provinces is something that the government is an expert at. Those issues and things that are important in Quebec are certainly just as important in my province of Alberta. It is critical that the current federal government get off of its ideological messaging and start thinking about things that are real.

I mentioned earlier as well my concern that we never measure things. We wait until it hits the media and then we crank up the discussion with that. However, to think that any energy process that we have, any item that we have and any molecules that are being presented do not affect the environment is an issue that we should all be concerned about. Certainly the area of provincial rights is probably the best place to make sure that this is done properly.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View's words of wisdom. The great orator Paul Harvey said, “Self-government won't work without self-discipline.”

The plastics industry has been a regulator for many years and has done tremendous work on regulating its industry. The member talked about the issues of toxic substances, etc. I wonder if he would agree that part of what is missing in this legislation is the fact that, while we put toxic products on schedule 1, part 1 or part 2, we do not have any mechanism in the legislation that would take them off it, the steps to take them off the schedule if it were found out scientifically that the products were not toxic. I wonder if the member would have any comments on that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, that gives me an opportunity to deal with the rest of the story. That, of course, has to do with the significance of our plastics industry.

I was at a school not that long ago and a student said, “What are you going to do about plastic straws?” I said that we can make that decision as to whether we want it that way or if we want to have the paper straws. At least, we should understand that it takes three times as much energy to produce the paper straw as it does to produce the plastic straw, so we need to understand that there are going to be trade-offs. That is really the critical point.

One of the main things that I was speaking about was that we have to make sure that we measure all things that are done, and then we make wise decisions. We can tell people that a decision has been made for this purpose, and we do not have to be always in this battle of one against the other.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rather excited to rise today. It is always a pleasure to talk about the environment in the House, especially since I was a member of an ECOSPHERE fair on the environment for more than 10 years.

I ended up there when I was working for Christian Ouellet, whose work inspired me. I tip my hat to him. As an MP, he was the Bloc Québécois deputy critic for the environment and natural resources. I did a lot of research for him for studies on all sorts of environmental aspects when I was working on Parliament Hill. Whenever we talk about the environment, the diversity of what we might find always strikes us. It affects so many aspects of our lives.

When I agreed to be an administrator for the ECOSPHERE fair at the time, I found it really interesting how that helped me see the impact that common household items and personal use items have on the environment. There is a lot of talk about microplastics, construction and renovation materials, what we use for transportation, as well as all the new technology for green vehicles. This touches a very large area of activity. It also gave me the opportunity, over many years, to have many conversations and to attend many conferences on the topic.

That said, today I rise to speak to Bill S-5 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I will start by saying that we are in favour of the principle of this bill. However, the Bloc Québécois deems that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and our Quebec territory. That was brought up earlier during questions and comments, and my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île also said it, rather eloquently: On April 13, 2022, parliamentarians from all parties in Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asserting the primacy of Quebec’s jurisdiction over the environment. Elected representatives in Quebec unanimously oppose any federal government intervention in environmental matters in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position and strongly advocates for the interests and values of Quebec in the federal political arena. For us, that is really crucial, particularly as we have nothing to learn from the federal government when it comes to the environment. Quebec really has a great reputation, as I said. I realized that when working for the former member for Brome—Missisquoi, a great environmentalist who travelled internationally to represent Quebec in green architecture. We even have an international reputation when it comes to environmental matters.

That said, under our current laws, the federal government has certain environmental protection responsibilities. The Bloc Québécois will do everything in its power to ensure that the federal government properly carries out its duties. That obviously involves updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. This is a necessary legislative modernization, and we will give it all the attention it deserves.

We want to point out that Bill S-5 does not constitute a comprehensive review of the CEPA. In fact, not all parts of the act are covered by Bill S-5. The bill includes many elements that are particularly technical, but I will not go there today. Those elements merit serious study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I think that my colleague from Repentigny, who is on that committee, will do excellent work, supported by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. Together, I am sure they will do a great job on this file. We really want those members to do this work as part of the committee to ensure that the modernized law will truly allow the federal government to fulfill its environmental protection responsibilities, while respecting Quebec’s environmental sovereignty.

The Bloc Québécois has been critical of some of the partisan claims inserted into Bill S-5. We are not fooled by the Liberal government's claim that modernizing the act creates the right to a healthy environment. That is absolutely not the case, even according to the senior public servants who presented Bill S-5 to parliamentarians when it was tabled. First, it should be noted that all the sections pertaining to the right to a healthy environment and to vulnerable populations are found in CEPA's preamble. Their scope is that of the act itself. They have no impact on other Canadian laws. While the bill would add the protection of this right to the federal government's mission, the proposed amendments would not necessarily create a true fundamental right to live in a healthy environment, although that is the crucial point and what more and more people are calling for.

If the government were serious about creating a new right and had any political courage at all, it would propose that the federation partners hold a round of constitutional negotiations to include this right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Since 2006, Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has stated: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved”. Once again, Quebec is a trailblazer.

Unlike CEPA, the Quebec charter, in Quebec's political context, is quasi-constitutional in scope. This is not insignificant. Clearly, Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect the fundamental rights of Quebeckers.

When it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. Just look at Bay du Nord, for one thing. Look at all the money the federal government is putting into the oil sands. Look at any number of issues. While Quebec is trying move away from oil, put money into a green transition, and support workers, the federal government continues to invest in all these fossil fuels.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois does want to work with all parliamentarians on chemicals management, the list of toxic substances, improved risk management accountability, comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects of substances, and mandatory labelling requirements to ensure that the repealed act reflects, to the greatest possible extent, the recommendations of stakeholders such as environmental health protection groups and chemical industry partners.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be absolutely vigilant in its study of the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. Bill S‑5, which amends the 1999 Canadian act, makes related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and repeals the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Marc Gold and went through first reading on February 9, 2022. It is now at second reading, which began on March 1, 2022.

Perhaps the bill does seek to strengthen environmental protection for a healthier Canada, but as I said, it lacks teeth. It lacks something that Quebec has already. The bill is identical to Bill C-28, which was introduced by the environment minister and received first reading on April 13, 2021, before dying on the Order Paper on August 15, 2021, when the 43rd Parliament was dissolved. That brings us back to the impacts of the 2021 election. How many bills died on the Order Paper just for vote-seeking reasons? This bill did, but many others did too. I have risen in the House often to speak out against that election, which traded four quarters for a dollar at a great cost to taxpayers.

If the government were serious about its desire to get things done, it would not always be holding up the work. In August 2020, when it decided to prorogue the House, many reports were shelved, including the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on how the COVID-19 pandemic affected women. The 2021 election also resulted in a lot of reports being shelved. We see that there have been delays in far too many areas.

The bill is identical to Bill C‑28, as I said. This bill, which amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is divided into 12 parts. We could come back to it in a much more precise way, but it is also important to mention that in 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development published a report containing 87 recommendations, including the following: recognize and enforce the right to a healthy environment, address exposures of vulnerable populations to toxic substances, and recognize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government dragged its feet on this UN declaration for far too long. Canada was one of the last countries to sign on. It is really sad.

My time is running out. I had so much more to say, but I will just add that on the weekend, I met with Thibault Rehn, from Vigilance OGM. He was proud of the work the Bloc Québécois is doing in denouncing all this and calling for better traceability.

He also told me how proud it makes him to hear us talk about what we eat, what we put in our bodies, the work of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the work of the Bloc Québécois in general when it comes to the environment. I realize that I get fired up when I talk about the environment, I could have said a lot more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time is up. I tried to give the member a little more time, but we have to give the other speakers time too.

Moving on to questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, some members, from the Bloc in particular, make reference to provincial and national jurisdictional responsibilities. I think for some issues, it does not matter what part of the region we are from. We recognize that different levels of government need to come together for our communities to benefit as a whole. The environment is one of those issues.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on how important it is, whether we are in a rural municipality in Quebec, in the city of Montreal, in the province or in Ottawa, for us to work together for the betterment of Canada and for the environment?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, it always surprises me to hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about the division of power, about what falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, as I see it, and under federal jurisdiction, as he sees it.

I have said this before, but I want to say it again for his sake. This issue has to be as non-partisan as possible because everyone has the right to a healthy environment. The problem is that the Liberals and the Conservatives politicize this issue far too often. I would even go so far as to say that the federal government has nothing to teach us. So much of what Liberal Party members do is greenwashing.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we have a problem. There is a flaw in the Environment Canada framework because the purpose of the bill is unclear. In the beginning, 30 years ago, it was important to maintain the list of toxic substances set out in the act. The Supreme Court of Canada rendered a famous ruling in that regard in R. v. Hydro-Québec.

It is clear from that Supreme Court ruling that we need to continue with the criminal jurisdiction approach. In order to do that, we need to protect the list of toxic substances and not divide it in two because that would make this legislation more vulnerable when the courts have to enforce it.

Can my colleague comment on my theory that this poses a serious risk?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is why I pointed out that there is still a lot of work to be done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, particularly with my colleague from Repentigny. A lot of work still needs to be done to rethink this legislation and look at what is missing from it. That issue has already been addressed.

As I said, Quebec has basically enshrined this quasi-constitutional right in law, something that Canada has not done and should do. I hope that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development can examine this bill and propose new improvements to address this type of shortcoming.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, like many times in our history, we are at a crossroads in regard to choosing the well-being of people over profits.

Too many times, government legislators have turned a blind eye to doing better to protect the health of people. Too many times, they have chosen to protect the profits of polluters and toxic industries because they did not know better or could not see the results of their choices manifesting in harmful ways in their very own communities.

Today, we are once again at that crossroad of opportunity to do better, or to carry on with the status quo that is harming people in the name of corporate greed and profits.

Over the past 50 years, science has told us, and cancer has shown us, that there are toxins in our bodies that should not be there. This is the fact of the matter, and this is what needs to be corrected. It is not just pollution in our air, water and land, but pollutants in our bodies, blood and breast milk exist. Pollutants that were put there by unregulated industry.

While I was preparing for this speech, I was reminded of the choice of the 36th Parliament that made pollution prevention planning discretionary and not mandatory under CEPA in 1999. That was a mistake a past Parliament made, and after 23 years, after eight Parliaments, this is a decision that this 44th Parliament must finally correct.

In those 23 years, only 25 toxic substances listed in the initial act have been subject to pollution prevention planning requirements. That is a rate of about one toxic substance every year. It will take 150 years for the existing list of toxins in the act to get a pollution prevention plan. As the Canadian Environmental Law Association stated, “This is a leisurely pace to addressing chemicals the federal government regards as the worst of the worst substances in the Canadian environment.”

Looking at it in decade-long timelines, it makes me wonder why Canadian governments have not done more before now to protect human health from known cancer-causing toxins. Every day 641 Canadians are diagnosed with cancer, and here we are, 23 years later, looking at the inadequacy of CEPA.

Canadians deserve better than the CEPA of the past, and it is the expectation of the NDP that this window of opportunity to improve environmental protections for Canadians and to offer them a right to a healthy environment is imperative to the health of us and of our children. We want a world where toxins being introduced into our bodies and the bodies of our children is not inevitable.

The NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading with the hopes that it can be substantially strengthened to reach that goal.

Bill S-5 is largely concerned with protecting the environment and human health from toxins and maintaining air and water quality. This is good, but there is widespread agreement that CEPA is overdue for substantial improvements. For one thing, it is widely considered to be unenforceable as it now stands, as there are multiple obstacles to enforcing it and remedies cannot be used by citizens. That needs to be corrected.

There are 159 countries around the world with legal obligations to protect the human right to a healthy environment, but Canada does not have those legal obligations. There are environmental bills of rights in Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but there is no federal law that explicitly recognizes the right to live in a healthy environment in Canada.

While Bill S-5 seems to be a step forward in recognizing the right to live in a healthy environment, there are serious concerns that this right will not be backed up by measures that improve the enforceability of the act. In fact, the Senate committee studying the bill reported just that.

As my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay previously pointed out, Canadians deserve more power to ensure that their right to live in a healthy environment is upheld. That is one of the things that my colleague’s private member's bill, Bill C-219, would do.

Bill C-219 is titled an act to enact the Canadian environmental bill of rights, and it offers umbrella coverage to all federal legislation outside of CEPA. Specifically, it would give residents of Canada the right to, among other things, access information about environmental concerns, have standing at hearings, access tribunals and courts to uphold environmental rights and request a review of laws. It would also provide protection to whistle-blowers.

I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-219 when it comes before the House in this session, because while it is good to see Bill S-5 here, it is important to note that adding the right to a healthy environment in a limited way under CEPA is not the same thing as ensuring, broadly, that all people have the right to live in a healthy environment, as is the goal of Bill C-219.

There remain troubling limitations in Bill S-5 on how the right to a healthy environment will be applied and how the right will be enforced. Without modernizing legislation to update chemicals management in Canada, and without the legal recognition of the right to a healthy environment, Canadians will continue to be exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals.

Canadians are exposed to chemicals from polluting industries every day in the air, in the waters of our lakes, rivers and oceans, and even in the safety of our own homes in the products we use.

Canadians expect their government to take action to protect them and their families from toxic substances. They expect the government to ensure that all people have the right to live in a healthy environment. These are things New Democrats have been calling on the government to fix for years. While the government has chosen to do nothing, the number of chemicals that people in Canada are exposed to in their daily lives has grown exponentially.

There has been a 50-fold increase in the production of chemicals in the past 50 years, and that is expected to triple again by 2050. Personal care products are manufactured with over 10,000 unique chemical ingredients, some of which are either suspected or known to cause cancer, harm our reproductive systems or disrupt our endocrine systems. Even some disposable diapers have been shown to contain these harmful chemicals. Babies are being impacted.

Since CEPA was first enacted, Canada has also learned much more about the harmful cumulative effects of these toxic chemicals on our health. We now know that exposure to hazardous chemicals, even in small amounts, can be linked to chronic illnesses like asthma, cancer and diabetes. According to Health Canada, air pollution is a factor in over 15,000 premature deaths and millions of respiratory issues every year in Canada.

These toxins are impacting racialized communities even harder. Frontline workers, who are predominantly women or racialized, often have higher exposure to hazardous chemicals. Across Canada, indigenous, Black and racialized families are disproportionately negatively impacted by toxic dumps, polluting pipelines, tainted drinking water and other environmental hazards.

The former UN special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes stated, “The invisible violence inflicted by toxics is an insidious burden disproportionately borne by Indigenous peoples in Canada.” This is exactly why there must be a better enforcement mechanism in this bill so that communities, families and individuals can achieve the protection outlined in law.

One of the most disappointing and concerning gaps in this bill is that it does not touch on the citizen enforcement mechanism. As the member for Victoria has said in the House, “The citizen enforcement mechanism is, frankly, broken. It has never been successfully used. The process is so onerous that it is essentially impossible for a citizen to bring an environmental enforcement action. Without a functioning citizen enforcement mechanism, there are serious questions about how the right to a healthy environment can be truly enforced.”

There are also other critical gaps in Bill S-5. It lacks clear accountability and timelines for how toxic substances are managed. It lacks mandatory labelling so Canadians can make informed choices about the products they use. It does not fix loopholes that allow corporations to hide which toxic substances are in their products.

If we want to protect our health and the environment, we have to ensure that we are following the advice of scientists and experts, not the interests of big corporations. These big corporations, made up of some of Canada's biggest polluting industries, have been attempting to stop amendments to Bill S-5—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up. I am sure she will be able to provide more information through questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for those very thoughtful remarks, and for the indication that she would like to support getting the bill to committee so that it can be improved further. I agree with the hon. member on that.

Does the hon. member have a comment on the tactics that she sees the Conservatives using on the other side? There is obviously a filibuster in play. I wonder if the hon. member would have a comment on that and agree with me that we need to get the bill to committee, so that we can improve it.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the people of Port Moody—Coquitlam sent me to Ottawa to make their lives better. We know that 641 Canadians, every day, are diagnosed with cancer. I think that every day we wait for this bill is impacting Canadians in a negative way.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member's speech and would agree. We are all concerned about the environment and having harmful chemicals affect our kids and their drinking water.

The Liberal member across the way asked her a question. I would like to ask her a question about the Liberal record of inaction on the environment.

What makes her think that now is going to be any different by just putting one more law in the books in regard to the environment?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam sent me to Ottawa to do the work for them. If I can save one person from getting cancer, I am going to do that work.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, as members know, the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a motion earlier this year, 2022, asserting Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment.

Would my colleague comment on that? Is she willing to work together to ensure that this bill does not encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did point out in my speech that I commend Quebec for the work that it is doing on the environment. I mentioned in my speech that it has stronger laws than the federal government. I commend it for that work and I admire it.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good that we are having this debate today. I too look forward to this legislation going to committee. As we know, on Friday we launched the poppy campaign in Waterloo. This year, the Royal Canadian Legion has launched a biodegradable poppy, which shows that every single one of us has an important role to play when it comes to protecting the environment. This is the first modernization to CEPA in over two decades, so I think every step does matter.

I would like to hear from the member how she believes that by getting this to committee steps can be taken and, if more people jump in to protect the environment and take their role seriously, we actually can do something about it, rather than be cynical, as we are seeing from the official opposition.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, citizens being able to have more influence and more ability to enforce a healthy environment is important. That is why it is important to have those amendments in this bill.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am interested in the hon. member finishing her speech. If she has some more comments to make, I would like to give her that time.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that. Canadians cannot wait another two decades and continue to be unknowingly exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals.

Our health is on the line. Let us hope that the 44th Parliament gets it right this time when the CEPA amendments come back to the House.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a good day to join my colleagues in the House of Commons for an important debate on Bill S-5, which was known in the last Parliament as Bill C-28. In the last Parliament, I served as opposition critic for the environment and had the chance to work with many members in the chamber who are quite concerned about the environment.

Since the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, was first put in place in 1999, we have not seen a redo or significant amendment to it. As we all know, life is becoming increasingly more complex. What I do realize is that there are voices on both sides of the House of Commons who care deeply about the environment. Some may have concerns about its impact on industry. We have also those who have concerns about how it impacts everyday Canadians. That is particularly important for when we have these debates.

The parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg has jumped onto his feet so many times today, accusing the opposition, and in this case the Conservatives, although we just heard from a Bloc Québécois member as well as from an NDP member, of essentially filibustering. Another member from Manitoba also just did that. Let us just put that to rest right now in my comments.

Let us be mindful that CEPA actually has Criminal Code implications. When someone is charged under CEPA legislation, ultimately the mechanism is through the courts through the Criminal Code. It is extremely important for us to understand, especially considering as life has become more complicated and as different levels of government are trying to see a more environmentally friendly place for their citizens, that there are going to be more complex trade-offs.

I am a former parliamentary secretary, and I know there are two types of parliamentary secretaries. There are those who burn shoe leather trying to build consensus in the House of Commons for their government's legislation or those who burn the shoe leather of their ministers by shining their shoes. Any parliamentary secretary who is trying to say that having debate in this chamber equates to filibustering is just wrong.

I am going to get on to the actual legislation, but I think I made the point that when we have this once-in-a-legislative-lifetime ability to have conversations about critical legislation that has Criminal Code impacts, it should be taken on, and we should be celebrating those members who feel strongly about these issues.

I would like to talk a bit about some of the concerns I have.

First, I take some issue with the government's approach when it comes to the regulation of plastics. It is no surprise that in the last Parliament we went through this at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development at length. What we found was essentially that the industry and the province, by the way, Alberta, was most affected by the changes to plastic regulation. What we have is the government trying to pivot desperately from a bad decision. That bad decision was to list manufactured plastic as a toxic substance under schedule 1. We were coming out of the pandemic.

We all know the same molecules that are used in a medical application are the same plastic molecules in a plastic straw. They are the same molecules that are used in a part for an electric vehicle, as electric vehicles are being made out of plastic more and more because it is strong and also lighter.

For the government, this created quite a conundrum, because the industry obviously resented the fact. Actually, some industry players have taken the government to court over this, and I believe the Government of Alberta has done the same. To solve this, the government has now created two schedules: the highest risk and the lowest risk. Again, it has not actually fixed the problem, which is putting in manufactured plastics that are used in our everyday lives. I could not be speaking to the House of Commons today without the use of some plastics in the computer I use or the mouse I use. Many of the members would not be able to get there without the transportation for which those plastics allow.

This is an area the government has complete hypocrisy and really should be held to account. It is not necessarily removing industry concerns when it comes to the new schedule, because they are still labelled as toxic. This will create a problem for the government as it tries to say plastic straws are bad and banned, but electric vehicles are good and it wants to see more investment in them. The government will have to deal with this issue at some point.

When it comes to the chemical management plan, this plan was first adopted by the Harper government when the Hon. Rona Ambrose was the environment minister. I am going to start with the good, and then I am going to get to the bad and the ugly.

The good is that the government has seen the wisdom in it and has decided to take the chemical management plan, which will allow for hazardous chemicals that have been shown conclusively can be risk managed, which means that there are plants in place and these companies are very good at it, to be utilized to make important substances we use in our everyday lives and in their chemical processes. This is important in an industrial economy. Yes, we still have an industrial economy. The Liberal government and the NDP's costly coalition has not done away with that just yet. That is an important part of it, so I am glad to see it maintained.

However, the Senate has created a number of changes to the legislation that could cause some considerable consternation, because oftentimes as legislators we will hear from different groups and try to placate some groups in how it is used by creating uncertain language.

For example, amendment 9 and 15 by the Senate would replace the schedule 1 substances that pose the ”highest risk” language, in reference to schedule 1 part 1, with more prescriptive language. We would prefer the “highest risk” language, because it includes the term “risk”. As I said, this is a risk management process, and the removal of the words “highest risk” would make the provision's enforcement unclear. This could lead to all sorts of litigation down the road. As I said, if someone violates CEPA, it would not be just a simple slap on the wrist or issuing a fine to industry that gets passed on to consumers; it would be serious business. We need to be very careful about this.

I would like to focus on something, because a lot has been said. The NDP has been really trying to balance its rhetoric during election cycles and to its constituents with what the Liberals have put forward with the so-called “right to a healthy environment”. Essentially, the New Democrats say they are going to take the legislation to committee and make it better, because they want to ensure it is a right.

I had the opportunity in the last Parliament to have an official from Environment and Climate Change Canada come and discuss specifically another piece of legislation. I asked about Bill C-28, and I said this, on April 14, 2021, at the environment committee's 25th meeting:

I'll be as quick as I can.

When people think of rights, they think of the charter, for example, that the government cannot do this to you, those kinds of civil rights, etc. There are multiple ones, yet the right to a healthy environment, what does that mean, and are they at the same level?

Ms. Laura Farquharson said, “Bill C-28 recognizes a right to a healthy environment under CEPA, and it's set out that there will be an implementation framework to delineate how that lens will be used in the administration of the act.”

My response was, “Will the right to a healthy environment under CEPA only solely apply to the regulatory enforcement of CEPA?”

She replied, “It not only applies to regulatory enforcement; it would apply also to how policies are developed under that act, but the point is, it only applies to that act.”

I replied, “It's a limited right, or not even technically that.”

She replied, “Right.”

Again, the NDP has basically sided with the government. Its members will say they are looking for further amendments, but it is clear this is just a factor, not a right, to be taken when a bureaucrat is looking through a lens of social economic responses, either for a policy or enforcement under CEPA alone. This is not a clear cut right, like we would see in the Charter of Rights or the Bill of Rights.

Those are a few of my concerns. I hope I have brought a few concerns to the floor that others have not. I also hope that the parliamentary secretaries can understand we are here to talk about CEPA, because this is the once-in-a-generation opportunity, as parliamentarians, for us to be able to discuss this important legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member is a little sensitive with respect to the questions I have been asking, and it is because we have a substantial legislative agenda. Whether it is tax breaks, giving GST rebates, the dental care program or the rental program, there are so many programs and pieces of legislation for us talk about.

On the legislation we are debating today, Bill S-5, I am a little anxious to find out when the Conservatives would like it to pass. Should it be this year or next year? Given the number of members who have spoken on the bill, and it seems the member has a lot of good stuff that he would love to discuss at the committee stage, why not allow that debate at committee? Let us pass the legislation and get it to committee so he can make some of those amendments, make those suggestions, and see if the Conservatives can make some changes to the legislation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have many questions and comments about the member, but I will start with this. First, I am not sensitive to the member; I am just tired of him.

Second, I have been on the committee and understand how this works. There is a very small number of MPs on committee and the rest of us in this chamber, who are not on the environment committee, will not be able to raise those questions. I would like to talk about the governance changes that the government has put in the bill, where the Food and Drug Administration component of CEPA will be given strictly to Health Canada. I have some issues about the impact of endocrine disruptors on the environment and I do not know necessarily that it is a good move, but I will not be at that committee.

It is patently unfair for the member to be saying we should just move on. That is a bad-faith discussion on his behalf.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members to be respectful toward each other.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is actually very simple.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since 1999, in other words, since the last century. A lot has changed since then, including knowledge about the toxicity of certain products and the increased health risks associated with using certain products together.

Could my colleague point to something in the act that needs to be amended in order to improve it?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, it is important to me that the process be enriched by discussions in the House. I think that is also important to members from across the country, especially those from Quebec.

As I said, the Senate put forward many amendments.

We will have to discuss whether those amendments are good for the bill. I do not think they all are, but I would like to hear from other members. I respect what they have to say in this chamber, not just necessarily the voices at committee.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, this debate should have been settled a long time ago. What I find deeply concerning is that the Conservatives continually raise questions about a fundamental part of the bill, which is a right to a clean environment. I would think we would agree across all party lines to a clean environment, but apparently not the Conservatives. Also, I am very concerned about their promotion of single-use plastics and toxic chemicals, and not getting a bill through the House that would protect and keep the environment safe.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that member is feeling the heat from the new Conservative leader, who has been putting out a message, particularly if we look at how the last election went in his neck of the woods. People are starting to abandon the New Democrats because they do not champion the regular working person and, instead, champion certain issues without necessarily having any balance whatsoever.

When I raised the concern that the so-called right to a healthy environment was just one factor that a bureaucrat would bring up in a regulatory policy, that is not really a right. If the member is pretending to his constituents that it is somehow more substantive than that, then he is kidding himself, and he is kidding himself that his leader is resonating in places like northern Ontario. Being focused on the wrong issues will be a problem the NDP will have in British Columbia in the next election.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S‑5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the environment has always been a major concern for me. The environmental situation in Quebec, Canada and around the world is evolving at a frantic rate, so it is high time that the House reviewed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In my speech, I will explain why the act needs to be modernized. I will talk about some of the concerns that have been raised by environmental groups and about some of the concerns that I had when I read the bill. I will also bring up some questions that I hope we will be able to answer when the bill is studied in committee. In case members do not already know, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S‑5 in principle.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been reviewed in 23 years. That was literally in the last century. I can safely say that many things have changed since then: technological advances; the planned obsolescence of everything we consume; the major growth of natural resource development to meet the exploding world population and the exploding levels of consumption around the world; and climate change, which is causing increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events and natural disasters.

This legislation therefore needs to be modernized. However, I would like to raise a few important points.

Bill S-5 does not review the entire Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That, in my humble opinion, is a flaw. Every section of the act should be reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with today's realities and the changing world we live in, as well as our aspirations for tomorrow.

Quebec must be able to make decisions as a mature and responsible nation, especially when it comes to its environment and territory. All of Quebec's politicians feel that way, and they expressed exactly that on April 13, 2022. On that date, politicians from all the parties represented in Quebec's National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asserting the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction over the environment.

Too often, when the time came to advance environmental justice or strengthen environmental protection in Quebec, Quebeckers were disappointed by the Canadian government. They have been disappointed by decisions and a vision that were more in line with those of an oil state than those of a state aware that it must legislate to leave a healthy environment for future generations.

That is why we will be meticulous about ensuring that the amendments we make not only meet the expectations of the people we represent, but also guard against the federal government once again interfering in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

In its preamble and its clauses, the bill sets out to create a right to the environment, yet the senior government officials who told parliamentarians about Bill S‑5 when it was introduced admitted that, contrary to the Liberal government's claims, the bill does not achieve that.

In order to achieve that goal, we need a government that is sincere and courageous, a government that will invite its partners in the federation to a round of constitutional talks aimed at adding this right to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that everyone can truly benefit from a healthy environment. That means opening up the Constitution. Enough with the lip service. We are done with that.

In fact, here again, Canada should follow Quebec's example. Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted in 2006 and is now 16 years old, states, “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.”

Unlike the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Quebec charter is quasi-constitutional in scope in the political context of Quebec. It is plain to see that Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect the fundamental rights of Quebeckers. Canada needs to follow Quebec's lead.

The bill also includes the notion of vulnerable populations, although it never properly defines the term. Reading between the lines, we believe that it refers to first nations. That said, children, pregnant women, seniors, people with immune deficiencies and people with chronic diseases or cancer are also among vulnerable populations, regardless of their skin colour or religion. Does the bill include them in its definition of vulnerable populations? We are still waiting for the answer.

I am glad to see that studies on toxic substances will be done and that they will take into account something that many groups and citizens have been fighting for for decades. The aim is to limit the use of vertebrate animals to situations where other research techniques cannot in any way be used to determine the toxicity of a substance. This is a good step forward. The bill needs to take into account the recommendations that have been made by health and environmental groups for decades, as well as the recommendations made by the chemical industry partners involved.

However, some questions came to mind when reading the bill. The need to study the impact of the accumulation of a substance comes up many times, but there is no mention of studying the effects of a combination of toxic substances. What I mean by that is that some substances are not very toxic or not at all toxic on their own, but they can become very dangerous when combined with other substances, and there is no mention of that in the bill. It would be a good idea for the bill to address the impacts of these combinations.

I noticed that the bill repeals the sections pertaining to the virtual elimination of substances. I wondered why that was so, and I understood that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development felt that the virtual elimination approach was dysfunctional. That being said, I think that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater here. Just because the act is dysfunctional does not mean that it is all bad. It could be improved. Why is it not being improved?

Furthermore, in several places in the bill, the wording setting out the duties of the Minister of the Environment and other relevant ministers is not forceful enough. Several clauses say that the minister “may” do something instead of saying that the minister “shall” do something, that he must take measures. I think that conducting studies and publishing reports should be a duty, not just a power.

Lastly, the bill implies that the minister must report annually on the implementation of the framework. Other reports and studies can or must also be completed by the minister. Why not use a group of organizations or independent researchers?

By using independent services, even supporting university research, we could ensure consistency in data collection and greater attention to improving mandates and research and study topics, while ensuring the impartiality of the data.

In conclusion, Bill S‑5 has many highly technical components. These components deserve to be carefully analyzed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in order to ensure that the modernized act will truly allow the federal government to assume its own responsibilities with regard to protecting the environment, while respecting the protection of the public and the environmental sovereignty of Quebec and the Canadian provinces. I am sure that my colleague from Repentigny will do exemplary work in committee on this issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what is in Bill S-5 is very encouraging. It is the essence of recognizing that there is a right to a healthy environment for Canadians. What I really like about the legislation is that would put in place the fact that Canadians can request that a substance be assessed. Obviously, there will be a lot of details that we have to follow through. No doubt that will come up at committee in some of its discussions.

We can talk about indigenous reconciliation when we think about UNDRIP. That is been incorporated into Bill S-5. There are issues surrounding animal testing. No doubt it is substantial legislation, but what I like is the fact that it appears that virtually all members of the major political parties in the House support its passage at second reading.

Does the member not agree that we will be able to really get down to a lot more work on the bill if we see it go to the committee stage?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want this bill to get to committee as quickly as possible so that the improvements I mentioned in my speech or that other colleagues suggested can be made.

Here, in the House, suggestions are made. In committee, suggestions are made, and we vote for or against them. We improve the bill. That is the committee's job.

I do agree that the bill must go to committee as quickly as possible, and then everyone can provide their input.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Beauport—Limoilou spoke on a number things. She talked about working together. Then she talked about the legislation, how the wording was so open to interpretation and how there was a lack of clarity and vague terminology throughout it. She talked about getting this to committee where we could sit down and bandy this about among ourselves.

Does she actually think it is going to happen? Canadians are expecting that we are sitting around, putting out ideas back and forth and coming to a mutual agreement. I wonder if the member believes that is actually going to happen.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fundamentally believe in goodness, conscience, human logic and also what I would call the good character of every member of a committee.

Of course, it can occasionally take some time to flesh out certain ideas. However, when we finally come to an agreement and stop complicating things, we can do it. I am confident that with plenty of goodwill from everyone, we can come up with a bill that all members can agree on and that will serve as a model. At least, that is my hope.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is passionate about the environment. I have witnessed her at OGGO.

This is the first time I am rising since learning of the passing of the Tla-o-qui-aht Nation hereditary chief, Muuchinink, also known as Bruce Frank. I would like to pay my condolences to his wife Iris, their daughter and all Tla-o-qui-aht and Nuu-chah-nulth people and the surrounding communities, because this is a big loss to our community. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to recognize our Tyee Ha'wiih.

I know that indigenous peoples are often in pollution hot spots and the bill would not do enough to address that. Maybe my colleague can speak about the importance of something that Muuchinink cared deeply about. He worried about our coastal waters and the environment and the spread of polystyrene. He also worried about the government's lack of regulations around polystyrene and that it needed to do more to protect our environment. Maybe the member could speak to that.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I seem to recall that there is a continent of plastic currently floating in the Pacific Ocean. Sea creatures sometimes ingest bits of it, which end up in our food. We eat animals that eat things that are not necessarily good for our health.

First nations are also affected because a large part of their diet consists of food that comes directly from the sea. We must be mindful of our environment and take care of it. By doing so, we take care of ourselves.

I hope my colleague will convey my sincere condolences to the family of the hereditary chiefs.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are times when we all wish that certain legislation was unnecessary. Certainly, that is true for this bill, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

It would be so nice to live in a world where there was no need for laws to protect the environment because everyone, individuals and corporations, understood their responsibilities and acted accordingly. However, we live in the real world, which means there is a need for legislators to enact laws to ensure that what should come naturally does indeed take place.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members opposite for their concern for our environment. Although there are times when we differ on the best methods of doing that, I know they have a deep concern for the future of the planet, one that is shared by me and my colleagues.

As we discuss the bill today, I hope that my contribution will be taken in the spirit in which it is given. Perhaps no legislation is perfect, but I am hopeful this bill, which has seen several revisions in the Senate, can be further improved by the contributions of members of the House.

The role of government is to protect citizens. None of us would dispute that. Bill S-5 recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and that the federal government has a responsibility to protect that right. That right is not defined in the act, which may give some people cause for concern, but it is good to know that the government has not forgotten the importance of the definition and that it is still to come. I hope we will see it later on.

I am surprised the minister needed two years to develop an implementation framework for how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of this bill, balanced with social, economic, health, scientific and other relevant factors, but I would rather that he take the time to get it right. Too often it seems the current government has acted hastily, to the regret of the Canadian people, so I will not complain about the delay in this case, although I should point out that the minister has had plenty of time to consider it, given that the government introduced it in the last Parliament but failed to make its passage a priority unfortunately.

What worries me is that the current government has a habit of making pronouncements that highlight its environmental plans but does not follow through. I am hoping this time it means what it says.

We all know that the Liberal government has yet to meet a single carbon emissions reduction target it has set for itself. That is nothing new. It is true. It talks about climate change, using words like “crisis” and “emergency”, but then acts as if it does not believe its own words. In fact, carbon emissions have gone up under the current Liberal government. It cannot deny it and it will not deny it.

The carbon tax is an absolute failure. Not only has it not reduced emissions, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that the majority of Canadians actually pay more in carbon taxes than they collect in rebates. So far this year, the commissioner of the environment has released 10 reports on the performance of the current Liberal government with respect to the protection of the environment. More than half of the reports showed that the government was failing to meet its targets.

It could be said that this legislation is long overdue. The last major revision to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was more than 20 years ago. It goes back to 1999 under Prime Minister Chrétien. We know so much more today about climate change than we did then and about the need for action and making a meaningful effort.

This legislation would modernize the chemicals management plan in Canada. It is hard to see how anyone would disagree with that objective. Taking a risk-based approach to chemicals management is something I feel has broad-based support.

I am so pleased to see the efforts to remove unnecessary red tape from our environmental regulations. All too often, it seems the goal of the government is to make life more difficult for Canadians as individuals and for Canadian businesses. It will probably surprise many people to see that sometimes the Liberals actually take the effects of their legislation into consideration.

This bill is, I am sure, not the only legislation we will see from the government designed to strengthen environmental protection on behalf of the Canadian people. It stresses chemicals management and toxic substances, which are not the only areas of environmental protection that are concerning to Canadians.

I seem to remember the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, several years ago, made recommendations regarding national standards for clean air and clean water. Perhaps those will be included when the minister tells us exactly what is meant by Canadians having a right to a healthy environment. Certainly, one would think clean air and clean water would be essential to that.

As this bill goes next to the committee stage for further study before being brought back to the House, it would be well to consider what we would like the legislation to accomplish. As I stated previously, we are in the House committed to protecting our environment. Canada is the envy of the world for our clean water, our clean air and the natural beauty of our country. We are all committed as parliamentarians to ensuring future generations enjoy the same healthy environment we have today. Our legacy will be defined by how, and only by how, we treat the planet that has been entrusted to us.

There seems to be general agreement that revisions to our environmental protection laws are long overdue. Perhaps the government has not acted quickly enough, but it is acting. Perhaps the provisions of this bill do not go as far as some of us would have liked to see, and that is understandable.

When this bill was examined by the Senate, it was subject to considerable amendments before it was passed and given to us for consideration. Some of those amendments make sense to me. Other suggestions, such as removing the word “cost” from “cost-effective” in the precautionary principle, would seem to me to be in need of more discussion.

I understand whatever form this bill finally takes, it will not be as all-encompassing as some would hope. The reality is that rarely, if ever, we will find a perfect piece of legislation. I would respectfully suggest perfection is even less likely when dealing with the offerings of the Liberal government. However, in this case, it seems to have addressed a need. I look forward to taking questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have been asking a considerable number of questions today regarding the Conservative Party's approach and not wanting to pass it to the committee stage but rather debate it, so the member is already aware of my concern about that.

The other concern I have is the Conservatives' feeling in principle that they do not need to share with or tell Canadians what their policy is on the environment. Many believe that many Conservatives are, in fact, climate deniers. They do not recognize climate change. It is amplified by their positioning on the price on pollution. One day they were in favour of it, yet lately they are against it.

I am wondering if my friend could indicate whether, on such an important piece of legislation, the Conservative Party actually has a plan on climate? If he does, I would be more than happy to provide the leave necessary so he could expand upon it.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I indicated that we are supporting this bill going to the committee stage, which we believe is very important and worthwhile.

As far as policy, I do not think the government has a plan for the environment. The government has a plan for taxation. That is exactly what the government has. It has not hit even one single target that it has been boasting about for the last seven years and beyond.

The Liberals should give us a break and stop questioning others when they are not performing on their own. Let us see the results they could generate as a government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping my colleague can explain something.

He mentioned in his speech that he is very concerned about water quality, air quality and the environment. That sounds wonderful, but his words ring hollow when I think of his party's desire to expand the oil industry. The Conservative Party may not have the best record when it comes to the environment.

Can my colleague explain how he reconciles these two things?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the same note, there is going to be a time, as I indicated in my speech, when we all have concerns about the environment. No one has more concerns than others in that competition toward a better environment, clean water.

I am surprised to hear the question from Quebec, where sewage is being dropped in the rivers in Quebec. Where is the Bloc Québécois on that? Why have they never raised that in the House of Commons? Why are they trying to question the Conservative Party on our vision and our belief in a better environment, cleaner water and cleaner air?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this bill does not address ambient air quality standards, even though air pollution contributes to over 15,000 deaths in Canada each year and air pollution is likely one of the most common ways that the right to a healthy environment would be violated.

Would the member support including requirements that the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment include actions that the minister would take when ambient air quality standards are exceeded?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill is not perfect. We would like to see it perfect coming out of the committee, after all the amendments that would take place.

I also spoke about how there is no definition for rights in the bill, as far as environment, water and clean air. The bill is yet to be perfect. I hope that, through the committee and through consultation, we would get a nice piece of legislation that would really help Canadians. We could make it what it is meant to be.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to clarify some constitutional elements that have been misunderstood in the debate so far today.

I have heard a number of Conservative MPs say that somehow this involves the Criminal Code. I want to clarify this really forcefully: I have a lot of problems with this bill, but it does not involve the Criminal Code. It involves the head of powers, the criminal law powers, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada back in the Hydro-Québec case. The government is entitled to legislate to protect Canadians from toxic substances and others that threaten our health. It does not involve criminality in the sense of the Criminal Code.

If my hon. colleague has any comments, I would welcome them.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have thought the Green Party has been silent on the environmental policies, and I would like to see more coming from its side.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and other legislation.

This initiative is welcomed because the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since 1999, and much has happened since then. I do not want to overstate the significance of what is going on here. This draft bill streamlines a program that is already in place and has been working effectively for many years. This is more about the administration of a program than bold, new ideas about the environment.

I want to talk about a couple positive things with this draft legislation. The preamble of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would read, “every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment”. The preamble of the legislation would also recognize, “the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.

We have no arguments with these broad, aspirational statements, but that is what they are. They are broad, aspirational statements. There is nothing in the bill that gives substance to these statements. In fact, we are going to have to wait two years to see the government's implementation framework to see what the government considers to be a healthy environment.

This is typical Liberal Party virtue signalling. It is devoid of substance. This is what Canadians have learned to expect of the Liberal Party: lofty words with little substance.

Another positive thing in this bill is that the government listened to stakeholders, and that is always welcomed. There were experts were familiar with the benefits and risks of chemicals used in the everyday life of Canadians. Toxic substances need to be used in a safe manner, and we need to listen to experts. Bill S-5 preserves the risk-based approach to chemical management as opposed to the hazard-based approach. My understanding of the distinction is that the preferred risk-based approach focuses on actual outcomes. It does a risk-benefit analysis.

Clearly, not all hazards can be removed out of our lives, but they can be managed, and that is what this bill does. That is a good thing, and we accept that. The bill also continues the tradition of being fact-based and evidence-based. We need to follow the science, use a precautionary principle, and make decisions based on the best evidence available at the time. Generally, we accept these principles. All government decisions should be based on facts, not on ideology. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has a fairly poor record.

For example, if we take Bill C-21, which is the bill that would ban all handguns in Canada, that bill is being studied at the public safety committee right now. The public safety committee has just finished a study on reducing gun and gang violence in Canada. We heard from more than 40 witnesses who are experts in the field, and not one of them said that the problem was handguns owned by lawful gun owners.

As a matter of fact, what we were told was that the vast majority of guns and firearms used in crime in Canada were smuggled in from the United States of America. The U.S. is the largest gun manufacturing economy in the world, with whom we share the largest undefended border with in the world. Admittedly, this creates a big problem for Canadians, but taking the frustrations out on lawful gun owners is not the solution to this problem.

Wanting to stay positive, I am now going to turn to the Conservative Party's record on the environment. It is well known that Canada's most successful pro-environmental prime minister was the Conservative, Brian Mulroney. In the 1980s, acid rain was a big problem in both Canada and the U.S. Our great lakes were dying off. The environment was suffering. Fish stocks were in decline.

Mr. Mulroney claims that his biggest and proudest achievement was the Canada-U.S. air quality agreement, which finally broke the back of acid rain. This achievement was not about virtue signalling. It was about achieving real, measurable results. It took real effort. It took co-operation with our neighbours. It took political will and stamina. It took the common-sense approach that Conservatives prefer.

We understand that global climate change is in fact global. We need to work with our allies, our trading partners and all peoples on this planet, as we did with the acid rain agreement.

Take plastics, for example. With the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the bill we are talking about today, plastic manufactured items would be listed as toxic. We knew this was coming, and here is what our Conservative Party campaign platform from last year contained: “To meaningfully contribute to tackling ocean plastic, we must recognize that plastic is a global problem”. Further on, our platform said, “The current government’s approach has been heavy on slogans but light on action. Declaring plastics ‘toxic’ isn’t helping our environment but is driving jobs out of Canada.” Again, this is common sense, not the flash and bang that we learned in a high school drama class. Let us get down and do the work.

The same goes for the Liberal Party's carbon tax, which ignores the international threats to our global environment. The Liberals want Canada to produce less carbon, so their solutions is to leave our natural resources in the ground and let other countries rack up carbon debits, to produce less natural gas and let Russia fill the void in Europe and to produce less oil and make Saudi Arabia and Venezuela happy.

It would be one thing if the Liberals' version of a price on pollution actually had the desired effect, but despite a lot of pious talk on emission reductions, Canada is falling further behind. Now the Liberals are going to triple the carbon tax. How high does it have to go before we will actually start to see our emissions come down? Maybe in a few years' time we are going to see what effect the tripling had. Maybe it is going to have to be tripled again after that. Canada is a big and cold country. We are going to consume energy just to survive and operate.

More and more people, admittedly, live in urban ridings and can take public transit, like those in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, where I am very happy to say the squeaky wheel got the grease and we got a commitment that the SkyTrain will come to Langley. However, many people living in rural areas simply do not have that choice. Ask a family in rural B.C. if they will pull their kids out of hockey because the price of gas is too high. Of course they will not. They will take the pickup truck, see the price at the pumps and be reminded why they are so irritated by the federal government. Then they will drive the 100 kilometres to a hockey tournament. This is what we do. This is how we live.

I want to end on a positive note. I will be supporting this draft bill, not because I support the government's failed environmental program but because the bill would streamline the administration of an important part of the federal government's work, namely the management of risks and hazards in our natural environment. We all want a healthy environment, and the Conservatives like the idea of things being managed in the most efficient way possible. This modest bill is a step in the right direction.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and ask my colleague some questions about his speech today.

There are a couple of things. I am really glad that he brought up the environmental record of the Conservatives back in the nineties. It was really strong, and it continues to be probably the strongest Conservative environmental agenda in this country, provincial or federal, ever. It begs the question: Why does the current Conservative Party neglect the environment in its platform and in its lines of questioning?

Carbon pricing is world renowned as the foundation of a policy that is forward thinking, and all of my colleagues on the other side in the Conservative Party ran on a platform of carbon pricing in the last election. However, now they seem to be railing against that foundation, despite it being a rather Conservative principle, a market-based instrument and a hallmark of many Conservative governments' platforms around the world.

I wonder why the Conservative Party continues to fight against something that is so well founded in economics while pretending to be the party of common sense and to know something about how to manage an economy.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am actually quite surprised to hear the Liberals keep promoting a price on pollution or carbon tax, because clearly it is failing. If we take a look at the graph, the number keeps going up. The government fails to meet one target after another after another. Now it is going to triple the carbon tax. Is this finally what is going to break the back? Unfortunately it is going to break the backs of many Canadians who need to rely on energy just to live in this large and northern climate.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove for his speech, in which he referred to Brian Mulroney.

I would like to hear him talk about the fact that Mr. Mulroney recently said that he no longer recognizes himself in the new version of the Conservative Party, particularly because it refused to acknowledge climate change.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I have a great deal of respect for Brian Mulroney. He was a great leader and a great prime minister. I am very proud of the Conservative Party because we have a great tradition here in Canada. I am confident that going forward we are going to form a very good and responsible government.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest. I heard about guns. I heard about gangs. I heard about the carbon tax. I did not hear anything about Bill S-5, though, but that is okay because we have the privilege of being able to discuss and debate, and I thank my colleague. I am thinking that people in Northern Ireland do not have that right now. The DUP refuses to enter Stormont and they are being forced into a new election. This is because the British government is ignoring its obligations under the Good Friday Agreement.

To get back to the issue of Bill S-5, I think it is very important that Canada play a role in pushing the British government to recognize that it has international legal obligations. We can do that through trade negotiations. This is what we can do as parliamentarians. Whether the member wants to debate guns, gangs or carbon taxes, we need to be talking about democracy both here and in Ireland.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening carefully to hear if there was a question there. It was a comment, so I am just going to comment myself.

Unfortunately the member opposite did not listen to my speech. Maybe the delivery was very boring; I am not sure, but I actually said quite a bit about Bill S-5. I am saying positive things about it because I think there is good in it. I am saying that I will support this legislation because it is a modest step in the right direction.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I happen to have worked in the administration under former prime minister Brian Mulroney. I worked on acid rain and worked on the treaty that protected the ozone layer. I can contrast, from first-hand experience, why the current Liberal government is not hitting targets and Brian Mulroney's government did. At no time did we in that government decide to fight acid rain while subsidizing acid rain. At no time did we say that we must make our other colleagues happy and build, for instance, more pollution into our system while trying to fight it. We cannot meet climate targets doing this.

I know the members opposite think it is important to build pipelines. We must cancel the Trans Mountain pipeline if we have any interest in making sure our emissions go down. We have to be consistent and fight for what our goals are, one of which is to make sure we have a livable world for our kids. That is not hyperbole. That is what the scientists are warning us about.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, climate change is a global phenomenon. Canada cannot solve it on its own but we can contribute. We have natural gas, which burns much cleaner than coal. Let us pump more natural gas and deliver it to China and other developing countries so they can get themselves off dirtier coal.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill S‑5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.

This is a timely bill to modernize the act and cut red tape. After all these years, it is time to revisit the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There are some good amendments here along with some not so good ones that came out of Senate amendments. We are open to this bill, but we are going to want to see a lot of amendments in committee. Changes will have to be made. There are good things in this bill, but not everything in it is good.

For now, we are willing to give the bill a chance and let the House debate the issues that have been discussed in the other place so we can come up with a bill that will improve the environment for Canadians. However, this is not groundbreaking environmental legislation. We do still have to agree on it.

Yes, this bill does introduce some changes, particularly in terms of administrative matters, and it will facilitate many procedures. However, this is not enough to enable the government to succeed where it has failed since 2015. The government does have a record of setting targets and missing them since 2015. Many politicians are being hypocritical by saying that they are going to fight for the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when they are putting all of this effort and responsibility on the shoulders of Canadians, who will have to pay for the ideological choices of certain politicians.

I am saying that and talking about hypocrisy because many people are taking a strong stand and saying that we need to put an end to the use of fossil fuels and plastics, when, unfortunately, most of us will continue to use a lot of these products for as long as necessary. Canada cannot simply put an end to the use of fossil fuels.

What we, on this side of the House, think, which seems very reasonable to me, is that as long as we need to use fossil fuels, we should be using energy that comes from Canada. It is as simple as that. Rather than using fossil fuels from countries that have no respect for the environment or for standards, we should be using energy from Canada. However, it seems members would rather give grand speeches and put all of the environmental responsibility off on Canadian citizens.

The Liberals' plan is not a plan against climate change, it is a plan to tax Canadians. They want to shift the burden of fighting climate change to taxpayers. Taxpayers are people like my colleagues and me, like the people watching us, or those who do not watch us. Not too many people follow our debates, unfortunately. If that were the case, then we could reach more people more directly, explain our points of view and explain our differences.

The only thing the government is proposing at this time is to increase taxes, hoping that that will work. However, that has worked since 2015 and no one has to take it from me. In 2021, Canada's commissioner of the environment said that Canada is going from “failure to failure”. I will quote what Canada's environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco said in 2021:

Canada was once a leader in the fight against climate change. However, after a series of missed opportunities, it has become the worst performer of all G7 nations since the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change was adopted in 2015...We can’t continue to go from failure to failure; we need action and results, not just more targets and plans.

Since 1988, Canada has set several different climate targets, but none of them have been met. The Liberal government's latest attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions involves imposing a carbon tax on Canadians.

One reality that the government has not grasped is that we are currently in the midst of a serious economic crisis.

Inflation is at an all-time high of almost 7%. The cost of groceries has increased by 11.4%, the largest increase in the past 40 years. The cost of a litre of gas is at a record high, yet the government is quietly preparing a price increase of its own. Not only is it incapable of fighting this inflation that Canadians are experiencing, but it is also preparing to ask Canadians to pay even more by imposing a carbon tax that it will triple over the coming years.

This means that Canadians, who have already been forced to cut back on groceries and make difficult choices because they just cannot afford the things they used to buy or get before to feed their families, will have to make even more difficult choices. There are some expenses that cannot be reduced, such as driving a car to work, and heating a home in a country like Canada, where temperatures can dip under 30 degrees below zero.

In 2022, people in Canada should not be talking about turning down their heat to save money so that they can afford to feed their families. That is not something Canadians should even have to think about. In light of all these difficulties and the problems they cause, for example problems that we are hearing about in food banks across Canada, which have a growing number of clients who unfortunately do not have enough money to buy food for themselves at the grocery store in such tough times, surely, this is not the time for the government to tell people to make an extra effort and pay an additional tax so that it can increase its visibility on the international stage by pretending to do something.

The figures speak for themselves. The Liberal carbon tax plan did not and will not work. It is going to work even less well because Canadians simply cannot afford this upcoming carbon tax.

When I call it a carbon tax, I really mean it is a carbon tax, because this money will be taken from our wallets, from Canadians' wallets, and sent to the government. The members across the way can call it what they will, but when the government takes money out of our pockets, that is called a tax, not a carbon plan. This is a carbon tax and, unfortunately, it has been repeatedly proven that this path will be unsuccessful and that Canada will not reach its targets despite imposing this plan, which demonstrates a real lack of compassion for Canadians.

However, we will support Bill S-5, and the reason is that it has nothing to do with that.

Bill S‑5 is going to do things like reduce red tape to help companies do business in an increasingly competitive world. Indeed, that is one of the things that we think needs to be done. As I said, we will be looking to make amendments to the bill, looking to improve it, because right now, there are risks associated with some of the amendments proposed by the other place, and we think they may cause even more damage to the Canadian economy rather than help it. Nevertheless, overall, we look forward to seeing Bill S‑5 move forward.

If all parties work together, I think we can succeed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member said the Conservatives are going to vote in favour of Bill S-5 because it has nothing to do with the carbon tax, yet the member spent a great deal of his time talking about the price on pollution, the carbon tax. There could be a bit of hypocrisy coming from the official opposition.

If we think about it, with 338 candidates, part of the Conservative election platform was to support a price on pollution, a carbon tax. When the new Conservative leader was chosen, they flip-flopped on it and said the carbon tax or a price on pollution is a really bad thing. However, the price on pollution only applies to provinces that do not already have a price on pollution.

Would the member stand in his place and criticize those provinces that have a price on pollution? Would he say that they should get rid of that price on pollution, or is this standard or a new principle just on the federal backstop plan?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I listen to my colleague speak, there is a word that springs to mind. It is the word “hypocrisy”, which he just mentioned.

I remember one thing. In 2015, the Liberal government was elected on a major promise: that it would run very small deficits for three years and then slowly come back to a balanced budget.

In his maiden speech, the Prime Minister said that interest rates were low and that they would stay that way for decades. He said that to justify his voracious appetite for spending. That is what I call hypocrisy. I do not think the parliamentary secretary is in any position to lecture me on that score.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not mean-spirited. I will not start up again on the subject of hypocrisy, and I will not accuse my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable, whom I like too much, of being a hypocrite.

However, there is a sort of hypocrisy in what I have been hearing for a while now. It is hypocritical to not recognize that Canada is an oil-producing country, which is the reason we keep missing our environmental targets year after year. The Conservatives' solution is generally to say that we need to produce more oil.

The other atrocious hypocrisy is to lead people to believe that the carbon tax is preventing them from buying food, when we know that the greediest players in the Canadian economy are the big oil companies, which are raking in staggering profits. The Conservatives do not ask them to make an effort. The Conservatives tell them that they will encourage them and find funding for them.

Does my colleague not find that hypocritical as well?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his declaration of love. I found it quite moving, truly. Mostly, however, I was moved by my colleague's ability to say one thing and then its opposite in under 30 seconds.

He began his question by saying that he would not be meanspirited and would not talk about hypocrisy. Then he went on to talk about just that: hypocrisy.

I am a little perplexed by my colleague's attitude. He wants me to say something that he knows I will not because I am not who he says I am.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have been pushing for a long time for more protections for Canadians, a healthy environment and an environmental bill of rights. In this past session my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay put forward again that environmental bill of rights. It is about ensuring that Canadians have the supports to know what is going on. I have been approached by many constituents who are really concerned about what they are seeing even in their own backyards.

Could this hon. member talk about whether he is going to support that colleague's push for stronger legislation than we are seeing now, unfortunately, and not just by taking incremental steps toward environmental protections but much bigger ones?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill S‑5 recognizes the right to a healthy environment, which the Conservatives fully support.

I am from Thetford Mines, where asbestos was produced for about 100 years. For about a century, this industry provided people with a livelihood, which we now know hurt a lot more people on the planet than it helped. Therefore, we were able to recognize that we have to do something.

Unfortunately, today, governments do not recognize the liability that exists there. Today, in Thetford Mines, we still live in an environment where there are asbestos mining residues everywhere, and we are asking the government to help us transform our town so we can live in a healthy environment.

That is part of what can be done and the specific measures that can be implemented to help us have a healthy environment.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here today and to speak to Bill S-5. Members may be aware that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since the 1990s. However, my colleagues have pointed out that it is more of a bureaucratic modernization effort than it is an environmental bill. Nonetheless, we as Conservatives, as my colleague just mentioned, will indeed support it.

Certainly, there is a lot of ambiguity within the bill as it would do many things, including recognize that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and require the Government of Canada to protect this right. This right is not defined in the act. However, this right may be balanced with social, economic, health, scientific and other relevant factors, and it would require that the minister develop, within two years, an implementation framework on how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of CEPA.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that we have seen ambiguity from the government. Certainly what comes to mind at this moment is to highlight the failures of the current Liberal government on the environment in particular. I will start with the fact that the Liberal government has never met a single carbon emissions reduction target in all of its years in government. We saw the Liberals do this again in March, when they said they were going to slash emissions by 40% by 2030. They once again released an ambitious climate plan with far-reaching emissions reduction goals, yet to this date they have not met a single reduction target.

Therefore, the Liberals' plan in March answered the question of what the Liberals do when they miss their climate targets. They simply make up new ones. The Liberal government's reaction to each failed target is simply to increase them and to talk louder, as we have heard from a previous minister: If they say it loud enough and often enough, people will totally believe it.

Bigger targets do not mean action and stronger rhetoric does not get results. The Liberal plan will have devastating effects on Canada's oil and gas sector under the guise of increased stringency, which includes a capped production. This confirms the Prime Minister's pledge to phase out Canada's energy sector. As an Albertan, this is nothing new to me.

Canada has what the world needs. When Europe needs ethical energy, the Prime Minister is effectively making sure that Canada will not or cannot meet these demands. The Liberal government is spelling the end for Canada's environmentally and socially responsible energy sector, and it is in fact surrendering the global market to oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela who do not have the same care as we do in Canada for both human rights as well as the carbon footprint. Canada's world-class energy should be taking up more space in the market to keep out producers with lower standards, but the Liberal government has failed to recognize this. Under the Prime Minister, Canada will continue to sit on the sidelines and lose tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to countries who do not share our values on the environment, human rights or freedom.

I will also make it clear that carbon emissions have gone up under the current government. Between 1990 and 2020, Canada's GHG emissions actually increased by 13.1% or 78 megatonnes. That is a significant increase under the current Liberal government. That certainly has to be pointed out.

As well, I will speak to the carbon tax, which we do, as Conservatives, because we want to realistically evaluate this. The carbon tax is an absolute failure. It has not reduced emissions, as I just pointed out in my last statistic. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that the majority of Canadians pay more in taxes than they get back in rebates. Again, we see the government tax and tax. In fact, when we look at the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we see that when the economic source impact is combined with the fiscal use impact, “the net carbon cost increases for all households, reflecting the overall negative economic impact of the federal carbon levy under the government's [healthy environment and a healthy economy] plan”.

The report states:

Indeed, most households will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing under the HEHE plan in 2030-31. That is, their overall costs—which now include the federal levy and GST paid (fiscal impact) and lower employment and investment income (economic impact)—exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income.

The government talks a lot about this rebate, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has come out and said that all the Liberals are doing inflicts more pain on Canadians than the good they are claiming they are doing. We are seeing in that report that even with the rebate they claim is helping Canadians, this is not the case.

In fact, in 2022 the commissioner of the environment released 10 reports on the performance of the Liberal government's protection of the environment, and more than half of these reports showed the government was failing to meet its targets, as I indicated before. A March 28 article from CBC News states, “Canada has had nine climate plans since 1990 and has failed to hit any of the targets in them.” It has not met a single target out of nine plans.

The article continues, “Jerry V. DeMarco said Canada has been the worst performer among G7 nations on climate targets since the landmark Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015.” I will add that the Conservatives supported it, in good faith, back in 2017.

Here is an interesting quote. The article goes on, stating that a climate plan “is a lot like a household budget, in that if one doesn't pay attention to the details, one won't achieve one's goals. 'You need a plan. You need to break it all out—what are my expenses, what do I need to achieve. And without that, you are obviously not going to stay within your budget.'”

Who said that? It was not a Conservative. Julia Croome of Ecojustice said that. Even Ecojustice, an organization that Conservatives would not usually bring up, is saying the government has failed on its climate targets, like so many things we have seen, most recently of course with inflation and the cost of living.

We are all very concerned on this side about what the fall economic statement will bring on Thursday, despite our leader's asking to stop the taxes and to stop the spending, but we have seen it is often a lack of planning that has led to this.

I will tell the House who has done their part. Industry has done its part, despite the government's demand to ask more and more of it. Enbridge has a plan to eliminate GHG emissions from its business on a net basis by 2050 and reduce the intensity of GHG emissions from its operations by 35% by 2030.

Cenovus is going to reduce absolute GHG emissions by 35% by year end 2035 as it builds toward its long-term ambitions for net-zero emissions by 2050, through methane reductions, carbon capture and storage, and other decarbonization, which is something of great interest to our leader.

As well, Imperial is a founding member of the Oil Sands Pathways to Net Zero Alliance, as well as determining transformational technology solutions.

The government is marred in ambiguity, and while this bill is necessary, it also is marred in ambiguity. As we have seen from the lawyer from Ecojustice, if one fails to plan, one plans on failing. While we will support this bill, let us clear up the ambiguity, not only with Bill S-5 but in government as well.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, number one, Bill S-5 does not deal with climate, and I recognize a big part of the debate we are having here is on sections of environmental and climate policy that are not in Bill S-5.

It is true the government has never met any target, but neither did the previous government under Stephen Harper, which picked a target in Copenhagen and said it would meet that target. It picked a target in 2006 and said it would meet that target. The Liberals claim they reduced emissions, but it was due to COVID. The Harper administration claimed it reduced emissions, but it was due to the 2008 financial collapse.

We need all the big parties to do all the things the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore has said: Have a plan, make a target and stick to it. In fact, not only have none of the governments in this country ever achieved the target, but they have not gotten the direction right. They are supposed to go down, but emissions go up. That is largely due to governments, one after the other, trying to accommodate Alberta's oil and gas industry and running into opposition.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not really hear a question there. It was more of a statement and a proclamation.

I will say that while we have always considered the environment, our focus at this time is inflation and the cost of living, and historically it has been the economy. The Liberal government staked its existence, its raison d'être, on the environment, and it has failed. It has failed in every single capacity.

Maybe the hon. member has not seen the results that she wanted from either party in their time in government, but we were realistic, with our focus set on the economy. The Liberal government set its expectation, its future, on the environment, and it has failed.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

I want to congratulate you on your choice of dress today. It is very apt and perfect for Halloween. Your French is also excellent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that he must speak through the Chair. As for my robe, it is rather institutional.

The hon. member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that really bothers me about the Conservatives' speeches over the past few minutes and hours is their claim that if Canada produces less oil, we will be giving Venezuela, Russia and others the opportunity to produce more and make more money, while, in the meantime, we will not make any money. That is obvious.

Since that is so obvious, does my colleague have any idea or can she foresee how the Conservative Party will transition away from fossil fuels?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his comment about my dress. Even though he is not supposed to talk about my dress, I thank him anyway. I do my best to dress for the occasion.

I think that we the Conservatives are well grounded in reality. Right now, the reality around the world and in Canada is that we need energy from oil and gas. Quite frankly, I think that Quebec benefits from energy from oil.

Even if we want to go in a certain direction, we can assess the other type of energy. Right now, Canada, like the rest of the world, needs oil and gas. We need to recognize that and work together—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay for questions and comments.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague listing every climate promise. She missed some, but she did list a whole bunch of the climate promises the Liberals have made. They have failed on every single one.

I want to ask the member a question. This past month, the Alberta Federation of Labour wrote to the Prime Minister with all the affiliates of the Alberta industrial unions, IBEW, the Boilermakers, the western section of UNIFOR, District 3 of the United Steelworkers and the International Union of Operating Engineers, to say that they are already living the transition, and they are asking the government where the funds are to create the diversification in a clean energy economy that we are seeing in the United States. Calgary Economic Development would say it would create $61 billion in opportunity for Alberta alone if that money was on the table.

Does the member support the position of the Alberta Federation of Labour, that we need to see this commitment to an energy transformation now?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's pointing out all the climate targets that I missed.

He seems to have missed the idea of the economy entirely, as well as that we came here as independent parties, not as a part of the costly coalition.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, The Economy.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely an honour to rise to speak tonight on Bill S-5 and lend my voice to this important piece of legislation, which would provide a major update to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

It has been said by many in the House that the bill before us has not been updated significantly since it was introduced, and so it is not as up to date or as current as it could be. Although I will be supporting the bill, I think there is some requirement to have some amendments and make some changes, because the bill still misses a few things.

One of the things the bill would do, which I agree with, is recognize that every Canadian has a right to a healthy environment, and it would require that the Government of Canada actually protect this right. However, one thing it does not do is actually specify what a right to a healthy environment means.

It is worth noting that the Liberals have been in power for seven years now, and it is my understanding that this is not the first time the bill has come before this chamber. A variation of the bill, which was very similar, came before us in the previous Parliament, and it is my understanding that on this update, consultations have been going on for more than five years.

The fact that this right has not been clarified in this legislation is troubling, and it should be troubling to every single member in this chamber, because the bill actually sets out that it would provide that the minister develop, within two years, an implementation framework on this right, how it would be administered and how it would be considered. However, it is critically important to highlight that this is not the first time the bill has been before Parliament. It was before us in the previous Parliament, and the Liberals still do not have that right nailed down.

In my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, frankly, people do not trust this Minister of Environment. They know he has actively campaigned against my riding and against the hard-working men and women who go to work every single day in the oil sands and in the oil and gas industry all across Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan. He has chained himself to a coker on its way up to Fort McMurray. He has chained himself to and rappelled up towers.

The minister has done all kinds of things in his previous work with Greenpeace that directly affronted Canada's oil and gas sector, so the fact that it is up to him to decide that critically important piece of how it is going to be implemented is worrisome. Perhaps he will, in fact, do a good job, but I think it would be far better that we parliamentarians, the 338 of us who were elected to be here, be the ones voting and deciding on that particular piece.

However, this piece of legislation would actually do a few things that I really enjoy. Specifically, one of the things I really appreciate is that it would make it so that an environmental risk assessment would not be duplicated, especially for any kind of drug. Before, there were so many cases in which things were being duplicated in the assessment between the Food and Drug Administration and CEPA. The fact that with the bill there would be only one assessment done provides some clarification and clarity. It would also help ensure that we have the shortest and most appropriate possible process for these kinds of things.

There is one thing that kind of concerns me, and I am not sure if the government has actually thought it all through. It is that the bill would allow absolutely any person to request that the minister assess whether a substance is capable of becoming toxic. I think this could open up a lot of abuse. It could result in hundreds of thousands of requests to the government for assessment, and we do not necessarily know how in depth these assessments are going to be. We do not know if this is going to be an onerous task that would be far beyond the capacity of the minister, because the bill does not request that the department do an assessment, but actually states the minister. The minister would direct the department, but it ultimately comes back each and every time to the minister.

I will go back to the fact that, at least among people in my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, there is very little trust that this minister has their best interests at heart in any capacity, which is a critically important piece. We would be putting a lot of power in the possession of one person, and I think that is always a dangerous space to be in, regardless of who is in power.

As I said earlier, it does remove some of redundancies in regulations, and in many cases, it has it so there will only be one department that will regulate a particular substance. I think we can all agree that removing redundancies and getting rid of government red tape is always going to benefit Canadians. It is going to benefit our bottom line. As long as it is done with strict protocols in place, our protections are still there. I think that is critically important.

This modernization is a good step. I am just nervous and do not understand why, after five years of active consultation, there are still such large gaps and holes. I am hopeful that the government is willing to have some amendments come forward on this and support them so we have the best possible legislation for Canadians.

I am troubled because I have been sitting here listening to debate on this legislation, and I am not hearing any Liberals get up to speak to this. I am not hearing anyone from the NDP getting up to speak. The costly coalition is miraculously silent. Its members really only jump up once in a while to ask a question.

It just goes to show that the Liberals are not all that engaged, or, if they are engaged, they are just here to heckle and create chaos in the chamber. They are not necessarily here to bring forward different arguments and explain why they are here and supporting this. I think this is why Conservatives are asking for some amendments to this bill.

As someone who is a new legislator who has been here for a year, it has been shocking to me to see how many pieces of legislation have been brought forward that are from previous pieces of legislation, yet we do not really have that fulsome debate. The Liberals decided that because it was fully debated in the previous Parliament, somehow we can skip through that.

Not everyone was here in previous Parliaments. Some people were elected in 2021, and we are not going to hear all of these debates because the Liberals decided that it already happened. To me, that is an affront to the democratic process and to democracy in general. I would urge my colleagues to keep that in mind as we are going forward and as they are bringing forward other pieces of legislation. It is critically important to discuss that in today's context.

When a previous piece of legislation, such as this, would have been brought forward, the major concern of Canadians on inflation was not there. The top-of-mind concern around inflation was not the burning question that faces every single person at the grocery store who is wondering whether they can pay for their groceries that week or not.

On this side of the House, we are very well aware that the environment and the economy must go together. I am going to state that because I think it is an important piece. It is really unfortunate that the Liberal government has continued to attack hard-working Canadians and making life harder for them in the name of environmental protection.

The Liberals are doing this while, in their last seven years in office, they are not meeting a single carbon tax emission reduction target. Not a single carbon emission reduction target has been met by the Liberals. They will constantly point to the fact that Harper did not do it either, but they were the ones who campaigned on being environmental champions and stewards, yet they have met zero targets. They have a track record of failure on targets.

What the government has done is introduced an ever-increasing carbon tax. Let me be absolutely clear: The carbon tax is not an environmental policy; it is simply a taxation scheme. It is a way for the government, and the costly coalition between the NDPs and the Liberals, to continue funding their high-spend agenda. On this side of the House, we are going to stand up against the carbon tax and stand up for hard-working Canadians every single day.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand up and find common ground with my friend and colleague opposite, particularly on what she calls the carbon tax, given that we both ran on commitment to price carbon in the last election.

I think there are two things we can agree on today: that the environment is worth protecting and that the time that we have in the House to debate important bills is limited and extremely valuable. We could stand in the House and argue against William Nordhaus' Nobel Prize on carbon pricing or something else.

Will my colleague allow this bill to go to committee so we can collectively add some amendments, if that is what is necessary? She spoke about an affront to democracy. This bill has been debated more than a budget implementation act in the House. The time has come for it to go to committee and get worked over. The time has come.

Does my colleague agree that it is time to stop debating it in this House? The democratic thing would be to allow it to pass through so it can go to committee and be improved as a bill.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think that is rich of the member and full of hypocrisy when he supported Bill C-31 going through this process in an abridged manner after a guillotine motion was passed. We had two witnesses who were ministers and three witnesses who were government departmental officials come before the health committee for two hours. That was how long we had to study a billion-dollar bill.

Therefore, I am sorry, but I am not going to take any lessons from the member opposite. I am not going to allow him to come here to tell me that this is somehow not an affront to democracy and that we should let this pass because, when the Liberals are given the choice, they just ram things through. It is their way or the highway, and unfortunately Canadians deserve better.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know the member spoke a bit to the bill and also talked about the carbon tax. My concern when it comes to the carbon tax is that all parties, everybody who is sitting in the House, ran on a platform to put a price on carbon. That is unequivocal. That is what happened. People voted for everybody to be here to deliver that.

My bigger concern is that we get here and then parliamentarians, even from British Columbia, think they can remove the carbon tax, when in my home province the carbon tax is a provincial jurisdiction. It was brought into my province by the right-wing B.C. Liberals and was supported by all parties.

Does my colleague understand that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the provincial carbon tax in British Columbia?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for reiterating the fact that the carbon tax is a provincial jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not understand that, which is exactly why they forced the carbon tax on provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Frankly, I was very proud to be an MLA in my home province of Alberta, where we had a tier program. Instead of having just a flat out carbon tax, we had a taxation program that taxed the highest emitters, and we had measurable environmental targets being met because of it. We were working to reduce emissions in our heaviest industries by doing so.

In fact, between 2012 and, I believe, 2021, there was a 23% drop in the intensity of emissions in the oil sands as a direct result of some of the technological advances that were put into place through the tier program. I think every member in the House would be well served to look at Alberta's model of the tier program. It is something I would have very much supported and would love to see implemented on a national scale.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, if we want to do a real review of Canada's environmental legislation, then is it not high time we included the polluter pays principle in the act?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, Alberta's TIER system is based on that kind of principle. It seeks to impose more taxes on bigger companies that create the most pollution. A fund to support technology is created with the taxes on pollution. This program actually funds the research and development of new technologies to help save the environment. I support that program.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to Bill S-5, a very important issue that Canadians are seized with today. I have appreciated the speeches and questions by my hon. colleagues today, and after reading the record of the previous legislation being debated in the House, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my voice to the conversation.

Today is Halloween. That seems fitting as so often I read or hear of legislation brought forward by the government, and it is frightening, especially when it starts talking about the environment. I feel afraid because I wonder what new pie-in-the-sky policy or target it is going to propose now.

Some Canadians are afraid because all they have heard from the government over the last two and half years on the environment is always about fear, that they should be afraid, very afraid, because we are all doomed. Others are afraid because they wonder how much it is going to cost. They are justifiably concerned given that the government has already spent somewhere in the region of $100 billion in its effort to fight climate change. Has it been achieved? That is negligible.

We have a carbon tax that is going to be tripled, and it has nothing to do with reducing emissions, but has everything to do with taxation and wealth redistribution. The carbon tax may not be driving down emissions, but it sure is driving up inflation. Add to that the cost of the new clean fuel standard and that will cost Canadian families an additional $1,200 a year in gas costs.

The government's much-touted carbon action incentive payments do not come anywhere near the amounts my constituents in rural Manitoba have to pay to fill their vehicles, nowhere close. Now there is an additional $1,200 coming. Canadians are no closer to a clean environment. They are just poorer.

Thankfully, the Liberals have yet to accomplish banning single-use plastics, given that single-use plastics were somewhat important in fighting COVID the last two and a half years. As my friend, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, noted in his excellent speech on this bill earlier this month, a speech from which I will, conservatively, if not liberally, draw from, 93% of plastics that wind up in our oceans today come from 10 rivers, none of which are located in Canada. It also takes nearly four times as much CO2 to make a paper straw as a plastic straw.

That and the whole saving trees thing, had the government managed managed to get a few of the two billion trees it promised to plant, may not have been a big issue. However, that is always the modus operandi of the government. They make a big splashy announcement with a nice backdrop and a myriad of ministers nodding solemnly, and something big and symbolic utterly unachievable is supposed to happen. They slap a big price tag on it, which is paid for by the taxpayers, and demonize anyone who dares question the government's plan or judgment.

To put it another way, every time the government does this, it is taking money from Canadians who pay their taxes in good faith expecting some bang for their buck, and they do not get it. It is a like a giant Ponzi scheme, with the government telling Canadians to give it their money, it will invest it for them and here is the amazing unrealistic return they can expect, and they do not get it. Only the people running the Ponzi scheme reap the benefits, while those who invested just get poorer. I will put it another way. Canadian families keep getting tricked while Liberal cronies keep getting all the treats.

Speaking of treats, perhaps the next time the Prime Minister or the finance minister want to talk about how they understand the plight of Canadians who are skipping meals so their kids can eat, the Prime Minister can tell Canadian parents just what a bed in a $7,000-a-night hotel room feels like. I am sure the meals were not that shabby either.

There are also likely to be some pretty nice hotel rooms in Egypt, as the Minister of Environment prepares for his annual pilgrimage of failure to COP27. Let us think about that for a moment. We want to reduce emissions, so let us fly 35,000 people to the Middle East. It is tough to know what will be worse: the emissions from all those private jets or the hot air from the delegates pontificating about how we are all doomed if we do not start eating bugs and insects.

After 27 years of conferences with nothing to show but some photo ops, frequent flyer miles and a noticeable increase in emissions, one would think that maybe Zoom could have been an option. However, that is just not as much fun, is it?

Speaking of fun, as we are having this debate tonight, thousands of kids are going to be out trick-or-treating this evening. We always told our kids to be careful about who they are accepting treats from and what they are receiving, and to have their moms and dads check the candy first and make sure it is safe. In this case, we have a nanny state and a government that wants to parent Canadians. It is the one providing the tricks guised as treats that will harm them in the end.

Perhaps it is a better analogy of what our role is as His Majesty's loyal opposition—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry to interrupt my hon. friend from Provencher, but I am looking forward to hearing anything about Bill S-5.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member has a point.

We have four minutes left for this speech. The hon. member should get to the object of the debate, please.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, we want to offer a careful assessment of the government's plans and policies and how they are going to affect Canadian families, and to protect Canadians from government overreach and bad legislation that ends up costing them their money, for which there is no return. When it comes to the government and the environment, we have a track record of fear and a track record of failure.

When it comes to this particular piece of legislation, I want to tell the House that I will be supportive, at least to move it to committee. Hopefully some of the real issues can be discussed there and can be given proper consideration, although I am cautiously skeptical.

The Conservatives are willing to work with the government on this legislation because it is important. We all agree that we want a healthier environment. We all care about this planet and we want to not only preserve it for our children but leave it in a better condition than we found it in. I think those are things we agree on.

As Conservatives, we have a long track record of accomplishment and enacting strong and tangible environmental protections, with no pie-in-the-sky promises and without policies based on fearmongering and ever-moving but never-reached targets. They are real, down-to-earth, common-sense efforts with clear, achievable metrics and realistic goals that are proportionate to Canada's share of the problem.

It is that last point that I think is at the crux of the issue. The difference or, perhaps better put, potential difference between Bill S-5 and so much of what the government has put forward is that with this bill we are actually focused on Canada. That is a good thing.

I like the fact that the bill seeks to reduce red tape. That is definitely one of its redeeming factors. That is a common-sense fix that Conservatives can get behind. However, even here the government misses the mark, rather than dealing with, for example, a real, tangible health and environmental issue like the dumping of raw sewage into our rivers, which, by the way, was one of the first things the Liberal government did. It gave the City of Montreal licence to do that. The next time we hear a Liberal minister stand in the House and tout that their government's first action in office was to lower taxes for the middle class, we should think of sewage. The specific word choice is up to members, but it will point them in the right direction.

Rather than deal with that, plant the trees or, my goodness, find a way to finally provide all Canadians with safe, clean drinking water, the bill does not actually do much. It ignores the environment committee's recommendations on national standards for clean air and clean water. It has a vague reference to the right to a healthy environment. This is not an actual right, like a charter right, but it is not as though vague or undefined rights have ever caused the government a problem. We can think of MAID, vaccine mandates or indigenous issues.

There is no metric for implementing or, for that matter, adjudicating an ill-defined right that is not really a right. This point has been raised by numerous members across party lines. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle put it succinctly: “[W]hen legislation is ambiguous, it really sets us up for litigation.” Why? Well, to play off what the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said earlier this month, one cannot back up platitudes with legal action. Again, here I refer to our Conservative record: clearly defined and reasonable goals, with clear metrics leading to real results for Canadians. I am all for updating and slashing red tape, provided that there is clear, unambiguous and effective legislation in place to protect our water, our air and, by extension, our citizens.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member represents the riding next to mine, Provencher. I am from Winnipeg South.

I just want to know if the hon. member recalls that it was Stephen Harper who added CO2 to schedule 1 of CEPA, the gas that is primarily responsible for climate change. Given that his riding is next to mine, I know that the Red River flooded this year and half of his riding was underwater. It had the worst drought in 70 years last year and had the wettest year on record this year.

Does the member believe climate change is real, that it should be a major focus of the House and that we need to use all the tools in our tool box to combat it?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is true what my colleague said. His riding is adjacent to mine. When he needs good employees he knows where to cherry-pick them. That is not lost on me either.

With regard to his question, he did note that half of my riding flooded. I would say that is a gross exaggeration of what actually happened. The Red River did flood again last year, but I am surprised how often these one-in-100-year floods actually happen.

Do we recognize that there is climate change? There has always been climate change and there will always continue to be climate change. However, I think there are questions we do not address in the House: What part of climate change do we as humans impact? Do we impact it at all, or is it because of forces outside of our control?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things Bill S‑5 sets out to amend and improve is the list of toxic substances. I think that is important.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that, especially since the goal, at the end of the day, is to ensure a healthier environment in which people, and especially businesses, stop polluting the air, as is the case in Rouyn‑Noranda and in my riding. That will reduce the number of lawsuits against these companies, as well as against the government if it turns a blind eye.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think an important part of this bill looks at the list of toxins that need to be examined. These things are very important. However, we need to make sure the toxins on the list of banned substances are there for a reason. The study needs to be done and the science needs to be researched.

I am troubled a bit by the part of the bill that says any person at any time can demand that the Government of Canada examine any substance for toxicity. That is one thing that is too ambiguous. We are going to end up with a whole bunch of lawsuits, as the member alluded to. It is probably frivolous work for the government, and I think it needs to be more pointed and more direct.

Are we against toxins polluting our environment? Absolutely, we are.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, everybody ran on a platform to put a price on carbon in the last election. My colleague asked a very clear question: Does the member believe that humans are exacerbating the warming of the planet and causing climate change and the impacts of climate change? We know his party voted that climate change is not real and is not caused by human impacts. I am hoping we can get a really clear answer from my colleague on that question and where the Conservatives truly are.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, what I can say is actual fact. We believe there is climate change. We have always stood behind climate change. We need to do what we can, whatever our areas of responsibility are, to meet any negative impacts that the climate may be experiencing as a result of our activities.

What I am against is the dumping of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. I am against making a promise to plant two billion trees and not delivering on that, leaving it up to the forestry industry. For every tree they harvest they plant three. Why is it up to industry to fulfill government promises? That is more of a concern to me.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill we have in front of us today, Bill S-5, has to do with environmental protection. It has to do with updating important documentation having to do with how we define toxins, which is long overdue. We know that; it has been mentioned here in the House before. It has been true since the 1990s. Unfortunately, though, the government across the way will claim that it wants to get the bill through quickly and that the Conservatives are stalling it, when the fact of the matter is that the Liberals have had five years to work on legislation and get it through the House. They have not taken that seriously. They have been slow.

Further to that, in the middle of those five years there were several elections, one of them called completely unnecessarily. Of course, that was in the fall of 2021 in the middle of a pandemic, when individuals were concerned for their health, safety and well-being. Interestingly enough, part of the bill has to do with health, which I will get to in just a moment, yet the Liberals decided that would be a good time to call an election.

Of course, elections have a way of stalling things. They have a way of putting aside legislation and making it so that it is no longer standing. It has to be called back once Parliament resumes, so here we are talking about Bill S-5. Again, it is something that has been in process for about five years. It did not need to be that way, but it was. Nevertheless, let us jump into the bill and discuss it.

There are a couple of things I want to draw attention to. Certainly there would be some new definitions brought about through this legislation, and I think overall my colleagues and I can agree to that. We see where there is some simplification achieved and we can get behind it. That said, there were many amendments made in the Senate before the bill came this way, which is the opposite of how things normally work, and we have some issues with those amendments. We will be looking to create some change around them to make sure Canadians are better advocated for going forward, but of course that will come at a later stage.

For today, I wish to speak to a part in the preamble of the bill. The preamble of the bill says that it is committed to prioritizing a healthy environment and that this is a right Canadians should have guaranteed for them. Here is the thing. First off, instead of putting this in the preamble, it should have been in the body of the legislation if it is going to have teeth, because we know that when it comes to courts of law, a judge does not make a decision based on a preamble; a judge makes a decision based on what is in the actual bill. If the current government is looking to truly be held accountable in making sure Canadians enjoy a healthy environment, it should have the courage to put this into the main component of the bill rather than in the preamble. Putting it in the preamble is simply another nicety, another platitude.

Speaking of that, we already have many examples. Let us look at the carbon tax, for example. With the carbon tax, there is a lot of fluffy language with regard to how the it is somehow making a difference or will make a difference, yet when we look at the actual facts, we see carbon emissions have not been reduced in our country. Actually, they have increased, so we have to ask this question: Why is there a carbon tax? We do not know, yet it continues to be in place. In fact, it is not just to be maintained but is actually increasing year over year every single April 1. That is April Fool's Day, but no one is really laughing because it is expensive to pay the carbon tax.

Canadians are reasonable people, and I think they can get behind something, even if it penalizes them a bit, if they know it is going to make a measurable or meaningful difference for them. However, the fact of the matter is that we have a report from the commissioner of the environment that says the current government has been given a failing grade on its environmental goals or objectives. It has not met any of them. This is coming out of reports that are at arm's length. I did not make this up.

Here is the government using platitudes, niceties and language that appears to do something but actually does nothing. Therefore, here we are again. We have this piece of legislation and in the preamble is this commitment to a healthy environment. However, the courage is lacking to give it teeth and to ensure that it happens.

Let us talk about that. If we were to truly define this vague term “healthy environment”, what might that look like in Canada? What might Canadians be able to anticipate if we were to create a healthy environment? Perhaps it would mean that we take a look not only at the thing but also at the context. For example, with plastics, those opposite me would like to put out language, and have put out language, that demonizes plastics.

However, to consider plastics in context, let us look at plastics in the way that they were used during the pandemic. During the pandemic, they were used to cover instruments in hospitals. Today they are used to cover instruments in hospitals. They are used for equipment in hospitals. They are used in daily practice to ensure that people are kept healthy. In a hospital are they toxic?

Further, during the pandemic when people were given plastic forks or plastic spoons because they could not eat in a restaurant but still needed to consume food, was that toxic? Perhaps it is, but maybe there needs to be a further conversation around context. Perhaps it is not adequate to demonize something altogether without considering time and place.

Furthermore, let us talk about a healthy environment and LNG or liquefied natural gas. Let us talk about, if we were to move entirely over to LNG and off of coal, the incredible difference it would make in terms of creating a healthy, vibrant Canada. However, the members opposite do not want to talk about that because to them oil and gas is bad. We would rather turn a blind eye to the truth that we continue to use coal because to talk about that is inconvenient. We do not want to talk about that.

We want to talk about all this greenism over here, all these plans over here and all this nice language that we have over here. Look over here at the shiny item. However, we do not actually want to acknowledge the truth, which is to say we have something incredible called LNG. We could use it to get off coal, clean up the environment and contribute to health.

Here is another one. The government wants to impose a carbon tax and it is tripling by 2030. That will have a huge impact on Canadians. The government has said that this is going to make a meaningful difference. We have already discovered that it has not and it will not.

Meanwhile, if we were to develop oil and gas in our country, to get pipelines into the ground and to get product to market, that would be a huge help in creating a healthy environment. Do members want to know how? The growing demand would then be met domestically, rather than having to bring it in from Saudi Arabia or Russia.

Let us talk about Saudi Arabia or Russia for a moment. There are no environmental standards. There are no human rights standards. Instead, the current government is deciding to ship in blood oil because the demand for fossil fuels is not going anywhere. It only continues to grow. Is that contributing to a healthy environment? We will just bring all the blood oil over from Saudi Arabia. Let us continue to fund Putin and his war machine against Ukraine. Is that a healthy environment?

I look forward to the government giving a definition to what it means by the right to a healthy environment. It certainly should be a lot broader than the niceties or the platitudes that it uses to describe its carbon tax.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of numbers for my colleague opposite and the other members who continue to debate this bill past the number of hours typically spent on a budget implementation act.

The first number is zero. That is the number of people in the House or really anywhere who have talked about banning single-use plastics from the health care sector. The number is zero because that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about things where there is a viable alternative, such as when something can be made out of paper instead. Somebody earlier said that paper straws are worse for the environment than plastic straws. We all know that is not correct. Zero people are talking about banning single-use plastics in the health care sector.

The other number that I have for my colleague is 338. That is how many members in the House of Commons went door to door in the last election and ran on a platform including carbon pricing. We should get over the fact that pricing carbon is one of the foundations for an important environmental platform because we all ran on it in the last election.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do love the number zero. Let us talk about the accomplishments in terms of protecting the environment in Canada. It is zero. Let us talk about the units of carbon that have been reduced in terms of emissions because of the Liberals' carbon tax. Wait, that number is zero as well. Shall I continue? I like the number zero as well.

The point is that the current policies that are being implemented by the government do not help to create a healthy environment for Canadians. Instead, they are punitive in nature. Canadians are paying through the roof. They are struggling. They deserve better.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about emissions reductions. However, I am still reeling from the fact that the Conservative colleague who spoke before her called into question whether humans are responsible for climate change. The science on the human contribution to modern global warming is clear. According to the world's top scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human emissions and activities have caused the vast majority of the warming observed since 1950.

Does the member stand with her Conservative colleague who questions whether human-caused climate change is real, or will she clearly condemn the anti-science rhetoric from her colleague?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the conversation in the House today has to do with what the government is doing concerning the environment—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Could we give the hon. member the opportunity to answer the question that was asked?

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I am good.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, I feel there is a degree of consensus around adopting this bill and referring it to a committee to make some amendments. We all understand the importance of modernizing this act, which is the same age as my daughter, 23 years old. It is not old, but it has not been updated in 23 years.

Can my colleague give us one example of an amendment that she would make to improve the bill, not tie it up in committee?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, basically, the entirety of my speech talked about the provision in the preamble around guaranteeing Canadians the right to a healthy environment. It is in the preamble, which indicates that the government lacks the courage to put it in the bill and be held accountable for that.

Perhaps we could start there when it comes to amending this bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I noted that the hon. member did address an important point with which I agree, which is that the right to a healthy environment must be a real right, an enforceable right, which would mean that the government has to open up section 22 of the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

However, I noted her reference to blood oil. The Green Party agrees that we should cancel all imports of oil from any foreign countries and only use Canadian oil, but there is a surprisingly small component of Saudi Arabian oil coming to Canada. All of it goes to the Irving refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. I wonder if the hon. member might want to comment on what could be done to get the worst and most human rights violating nations out of Canada's energy streams.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that if we are serious about wanting to make sure that we are taking care of our health as Canadians but also the health of world, which should be at least, in part, our endeavour, then we do need to consider our sources pertaining to oil and gas.

When we bring in, from countries that do not have high environmental standards or do not treat people with the utmost respect for human rights, then we are actually functioning in an unethical manner ourselves. We have an opportunity to correct that by—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming date, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here in the House to address the government's bill, Bill S-5, and more broadly to address the environmental policy approach taken by this government.

Sadly, we are seven years into the tenure of this government, and it still does not have an environmental plan. It does not have a plan to address the challenges we face in terms of climate change or various other issues. What it has in reality is a tax plan that it would like to tell us is an environmental plan. Its plan is to continue to increase its carbon tax, to triple its carbon tax, yet it wants to back away from the actual nature of that policy and the mechanism by which it is supposed to work.

Those who favour a carbon tax as a response to the challenges we face associated with climate change believe essentially that raising the price of goods that entail carbon emissions will discourage people from consuming those goods, engender less consumption of those goods and therefore entail fewer emissions overall. That is the logic of a carbon tax. It is not one I agree with, but I can at least understand that is how it is proposed by those who defend it, at least by those who defend it honestly.

However, entailed in that process is the idea that by increasing the price of goods, such as driving, airline flights and heating one's home, people will do it less. When we read in the news that people are suffering because of higher prices, that they are worried about whether they can heat their homes, that they are being forced to cancel vacations or trips in their car to visit or support family members, it is important for people to understand that it is not some accidental by-product of the carbon tax policy. It is actually the purpose of the carbon tax policy. It is to lead people to do fewer of those activities. It is to lead people to heat their homes less, to drive less, to travel less, etc.

The government has put in place a policy that is designed to limit the ability of Canadians to do those various things, yet we have members of this coalition, NDP and Liberal politicians, who act surprised that this is the outcome. They ask why gas prices are higher. I do not know, but maybe it is because they have imposed a tax on gas specifically designed for the purpose of raising the price. That would be one explanation of why gas prices are higher.

Now, let us acknowledge that there are many things that go into the price of gas. There are many things that go into the price of these various goods that are taxed by the carbon tax, but one of those contributing factors to the price is the tax that is put on top of it. Therefore, I wish members of the costly coalition in this place would be willing to own up to the fact that this is the consequence of the policy they have put in place.

We should also note just how grievously unfair that policy is, because the people who are going to be forced to cancel those trips and the people who are going to be forced to sit in the cold are people who are relatively less well off. Many members of the House, people who are in a better position financially, are going to be able to continue to afford to travel. They are going to be able to continue to afford to heat their homes, but many Canadians will not. Those many Canadians bear the brunt of the cost associated with the carbon tax. The carbon tax is very regressive in the way that it hits the population. It is regressive in that it imposes those costs most on those who can least afford to pay them.

This is not an environmental plan. Why do I say that? It is because the independent analyses have shown very clearly that the government's carbon tax will not achieve the environmental objectives that it wants it to. Why is that the case? Why does this logic that imposing costs on people will lead to less consumption not work? It is because many of the goods we are talking about are essentials.

We live in Canada. People need to heat their homes. Of course, there are adaptations people can make. They can make renovations to their homes, but for those who are most affected by the carbon tax, they likely struggle to afford those kinds of adaptations. Therefore, the approach we have emphasized is how we support people with new technology but also with various kinds of deductions that allow them to make those kinds of adaptations.

Our approach has always emphasized technology as opposed to taxes. That is why a previous Conservative government brought in the home renovation tax credit. Some of these changes are aimed at making it easier for people to afford the adaptations they need. It is an environment-oriented tax cut instead of imposing a punitive tax on people. A tax-cut approach helps people have the resources they need to make these kinds of adaptation.

The problem is, when people are barely getting by and we increase costs on them, that is not going to lead them to make adaptations to their lives. That is not going to allow them to afford a new home with better insulation. They are struggling to get by. That is the point and that is the reality. This carbon tax is part of a politically manufactured affordability crisis that we have in this country. The government's out-of-control spending is driving up the cost of everything by driving inflation. The government is responding to that by additional punitive taxes. Of course, we know about its planned payroll taxes, but also its plan with the carbon tax.

It is particularly notable now, in the global context we are in, what a failure the government's approach to energy policy is. More and more countries are recognizing how important energy security is. We are seized with the horrific, genocidal Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we are thinking about what more we can do to support Ukraine. There are many areas the government needs to do more, but one of those areas is to work toward, as quickly as possible, increasing Canadian energy production and support our European allies by supplying them with the vital energy they need to not be dependent on Russian gas.

Canada is one of the only democracies in the world that has an abundance of natural resources. As it happens, many of the world's democracies are geographically small, populous nations that rely on the import of natural resources.

Within the community of democratic nations, because we are rich in natural resources and because we are more sparsely populated, I believe Canada has a special vocation in terms of supplying our like-minded allies with the energy resources they need to not be reliant on dictator oil and not feel forced to contort their foreign policy to access the energy that they need. Canada can play that role in displacing Russian energy in Europe.

It is not just about replacing foreign energy imports into Canada, although that is part of the picture. We should be replacing foreign energy imports into Canada and displacing dictator oil from our European partners. This is an urgent issue in terms of global security and Canada needs to step up. However, the Prime Minister and other ministers continue to throw cold water on proposals for more support to Europe in the form of natural gas production, exports and other things along those lines. It is a huge missed opportunity.

[An hon. member]

I was choking, too.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the NDP is making jokes about my cough. I will not take it personally, and I wish him well.

The legislation we have in front of us does not respond to—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was not making fun of his cough. I thought the cough was the best part of his speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As we have only a minute left, I will call on the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot I could say about that member's contributions to the House. I will come back to it in due course, but I do want to get in some final points.

Bill S-5 is a piece of legislation that contains some things that Conservatives can support. We look forward to proposing amendments to aspects of the legislation. A major concern of my constituents is the fact that this legislation continues to allow the label “toxic” to be associated with plastic, yet we use plastic for so many everyday things that labelling plastic, in general, as toxic is just ridiculous.

Work is required. In general, I think it is clear that the government's proposals around the environment are a total failure. They are not working, and they are manufacturing an affordability crisis in Canada. We need to emphasize technology, not taxes, and we need an approach that addresses the affordability crisis and improves the environment at the same time.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would acknowledge that the April 1 increase on the price on pollution was 2.2¢. The illegal war on Ukraine accounts for 70% of the rise in the cost of gas, and 25% is because of provincial taxes and refining margins.

I am a fellow western Canadian. I believe the energy sector is important, not just in western Canada, but for all Canadians. The oil majors have committed to net zero by 2050. They believe in market mechanisms to drive down pollution and reduce emissions. I wonder if the hon. member agrees with them.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that his government's plan is to triple the carbon tax over time. It tells us it is going to be tripled, and that we will get to that tripling, but only through little increases that we will barely notice.

The member is right, it is increasing on April 1, and those increases add up insofar as they impact virtually all of the goods that individuals consume. Moreover, I think people want us to take a step back and say that this tripling of the tax, which is being done a little at a time, will add up and significantly affect their bottom line.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of speeches tonight and I am getting the impression that this is an opposition day on the carbon tax. However, we are talking about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I understand that the two are basically related, but I want to circle back to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

At the end of his speech, my colleague mentioned that there are things in the current act that he likes and things that he would like to see changed and improved. I would like him to give us an example of one thing he likes and one thing he would like to see improved.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

In principle, I agree with the idea of a right to a healthy environment.

I also mentioned the problem with the designation of plastics as toxic in general. That is not something that is changed by the bill. It is a pre-existing problem regarding the intentions of the current government. As the member suggested, that is both a positive and a negative.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's discussion and points on the price of gasoline. The United States has to release information each week that shows the refining capacity and cost, which it allows consumers to look at. As well, even Donald Trump used the strategic petroleum reserve to try to influence the market to lower the price of gasoline.

I wonder whether he thinks that these are basically interventions in the market, or at least positions that we should maybe look at on the Canadian side, especially requiring the information to be released so Canadian consumers can follow the product from the refinery to the pump.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, unless the member disagrees with his party, he supports the idea of imposing increasingly higher taxes on gasoline, so I think it is contradictory of the New Democrats to say, on the one hand, that they want to impose taxes on gasoline, which are specifically designed to raise the price, but on the other hand maybe there is some other backdoor mechanism we can use to reduce the price.

I think they need to answer this question directly: Is their goal higher gas prices or lower gas prices? If it is higher gas prices, they should own it and admit it. If they want lower gas prices, I have a simple solution, which is to stop increasing the carbon tax. If we want gas prices to be lower, then we can reduce or remove the tax that is specifically designed, as it is currently structured, to increase that price. That should be fairly straightforward and simple. If we did not have a carbon tax, maybe we could ask what else we could do to lower the price, but let us first be honest about the fact that his party is pushing for a policy designed to increase the price of gas.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity today to address something that this bill does not look at whatsoever and something I do not think the House has addressed in any form of debate yet. I would encourage my colleagues to listen to me because what I am about to present is something this entire place will be seized with for many years to come.

What I am worried about this bill failing to address is two things. Number one is that we are seeing global greenhouse gas emissions rise at rapid rates, in spite of global policy that has been considered dogma for the last several years, so we do not have a solution to climate change. This bill does not address that. I am also very worried that some of the failings of the climate policy the world has put forward, particularly the Liberal climate policy, is setting us up toward a potential reset of the geopolitical order away from western democracies and in favour of autocracies.

This bill fails to address a question that I really want every person in the House to listen to. What happens if Russia, which is engaged in a barbaric war of aggression against Ukraine, does not ever turn the taps back on to Europe? That is a question that people are not asking themselves right now, and it is a problem. The prevailing wisdom right now in many corners is that, at some point, western sanctions on Russia for its war of aggression against Ukraine is going to break Russia and the ensuing fallout will lead to Russia turning the taps back on to Europe and everything kind of going back to normal.

I am very concerned that is not the case and that our environmental policy in Canada is failing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and we are now no longer at the point where we are just talking about the runaway inflation that people are addressing. I am worried about the effect on western democracy. This is not hyperbole, and I would like to briefly lay out my thesis here.

The west has made three major errors in its climate policy. Number one, the fact that the committee on party process has never seriously addressed the creation of substitute goods, low-cost, affordable substitutes to high-carbon consumer practices and products, at the same pace that we have increased our reliance on energy from autocratic nations while reducing our own capacity to produce carbon energy is a huge problem. In simple terms, what that means is that the people at the fancy cocktail parties forgot that, if we do not have something to replace something with, we are going to have a massive increase in price and the demand is going to be filled by something or someone. That is critical error number one, that we do not have substitute goods for carbon in a way to address or match what is happening with inflation.

Critical error number two is that the western world has just spent an enormous amount of money on the pandemic. We are having a massive parliamentary debate on whether or not that spending was justified. I would think everyone in here agrees that the western world is so in debt that we no longer have resiliency to weather another shock, which means that, at a time when we need to be addressing things like energy security, there is, number one, an unwillingness to step away from the current climate dogma of the current policy on the table, which does not address substitute goods and, number two, we cannot even get countries to talk about how we are going to address the lack of supply that has been precipitated by Russia turning the taps off.

The third critical failing in global climate policy is that we fail to understand that the west's paternalistic approach to post-colonial countries has left a dialogue that is ripe for anti-western rhetoric to take root. What do those three things come into nexus on right now? This is where we are.

There are three major problems.

First of all, we are seeing massive economic disaster in the European Union specifically. I encourage colleagues here today to look at the inflation numbers, particularly out of the European Union. They are grim, and they are frightening.

Second, I ask my colleagues to look at the reliance of European countries on Russian gas. In Germany, I believe it is 50% of its utilization that comes from Russia, and there is no replacement for that in sight. Why? It is because our climate policy has been short-sighted and did not say, “Look, while we are trying to find ways to replace that carbon with new technology, we should be ensuring that there is a supply from pro-democratic, western countries.” Now, there is no short- or even medium-term solution for European countries from Canada or even the U.S. to meet that demand, which is a huge problem. That is a reality that is not set into our climate policy.

The other problem with this is that there is going to be civil unrest. When people cannot afford to eat or heat their homes, all the stuff we talk about here, and sometimes the theatre that engages in the House of Commons, results in civil unrest. If it does not result in civil unrest, it results in something equally dangerous, which is a ground of people, an electorate, in western countries, in democratic nations, who are open to listening to anti-democratic propaganda from countries that have an economic interest in ensuring that they have that supply.

The third thing that is very damaging about this failure in western climate policy is that now, when we are faced with the consequences, not having those substitute goods, not having that pro-democratic, western supply of carbon energy, we are now firing coal plants up again. There are coal-fired electricity plants that are being fired up in western countries with climate policies, because Canada did not produce LNG.

In all seriousness, this is what I want my colleagues to ask: What happens if Russia never turns the taps back on? If anybody thinks that is not going to happen, it is already finding new markets in China, India and Myanmar. What happens? We do not have substitute goods, and we are so in debt we do not have the ability now. How is the government going to pay for beefing up our grid infrastructure and all the things we need to do to make actual change in climate policy? We do not have that resilience. We do not even have that resilience to help people through this winter's energy crisis or this winter's food crisis.

I want people to think about the long-term fallout of what is going to happen here as we are putting tariffs and restrictions on petroleum fertilizer in Canada. I have talked to Ukrainian MPs who are worried about food production, and not in the short term. They say the Russians are seeding their fields with land mines.

This is serious, and the bill does not address any of this stuff. Frankly, our dialogue on climate change, on energy security, is in this theatre between one pole and the other. This government is in power right now, and it has a responsibility and a moral duty to answer the questions: We are in dire straits; what are we going to do? What happens if Russia does not turn the taps back on? We do not have an answer for that right now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and I am profoundly sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, because it is an important speech, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Bill S-5.

Bill S-5 deals with toxic chemicals, and with six different parts, none touch on carbon pricing; none are about Russia, Ukraine or climate. Bill S-5 is a different bill altogether. This is an important speech, but there is no relevance to Bill S-5.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Well, knowing that we have only about 50 seconds left in the speech, I would ask the member to maybe wrap things up in view of the bill before us.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not have asked for a greater proof point than what the leader of the Green Party of Canada just gave to my argument.

Environmental policy is so out of touch; it is so far from being moored in the reality of actually achieving results while ensuring that western democratic values are protected that this is the type of comment we get. The fact that we are debating the bill today—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sorry but Bill S-5 is not a sign of irrelevance for all climate policy. It happens to be the bill we are debating now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe we are descending into debate. For the sake of 30 seconds left in the speech, maybe we will let the member finish her speech and then we will take questions and comments. I am sure there will be a lot of great comments and a lot of great answers.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Again, Mr. Speaker, that is the point. We are here spending time in debate on something that does not even come close to addressing the greatest environmental challenge and the greatest threat to the global geopolitical order in recent history. This is not a joke. This is not about points of order and whatever. This is about a call to action for every person in this place to understand that our failure on this issue means autocracies benefit. We have to get this right.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that my hon. colleague's speech is not necessarily tied into Bill S-5, but all of it is extremely important. Bill S-5 is important, and all the comments my colleague has made are issues that we all have to be paying much more attention to than we have so far.

Certainly, at various committees, work is being done. I encourage the hon. member and I know how sincere she is with her concerns that at the committee level we will continue to work through some of these issues. However, I share concern on much of what she said about where we are going and whether we have enough time to get where we need to get with the concerns she has raised today.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough. I get where my colleague is coming from, but she is a member of the governing party. As a member of the governing party, she has influence and stature within her caucus to say that the pressure the world is under right now because of our inability to have a stable source of carbon energy at this juncture in history could actually contribute to not just massive civil unrest due to inflationary pressures but also a reset of the geopolitical order. I encourage her to use her voice within her caucus and up the food chain to persuade the government to make a difference and change its policy.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, with whom I recently had the pleasure of attending the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Kigali. She and I met with the same Ukrainian elected representatives and observed the same geopolitical issues and the rise of a kind of autocracy and anti-West movements.

I want to go back to Bill S‑5 because it is crucial. We know that international conflicts, food insecurity and climate change are connected, and we know they will exacerbate global hunger issues.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about farmers. Farmers really want to be part of the solution to develop better food resilience and be supported through this transition. This is crucial, and it is related to what we are talking about in Bill S‑5 because it has to do with the traceability of what we eat and the safety of the products we ingest.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, because she is laying out the problem here. Right now, the world does not have the tools it needs to address the issues of food insecurity due to a lack of carbon energy production, particularly in light of the situation in Europe right now as well as those long-term substitute goods.

What the member is addressing is the issue of the price inelasticity of carbon. This is something I have been talking about in here for 10 years. We can tax and we can make the price as high as possible, but if it is a critical good that humanity relies upon to exist, if we do not have it we will get civil unrest, starvation, riots and more.

We are down that path. We need to ensure that energy security and substitute goods are an emergent, number one priority for any conversation on climate policy. I really encourage colleagues within their own caucuses, as we are approaching Canada's trip to the Conference of the Parties, to be talking about how Canada should be putting energy security at the front of its climate policy.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Federation of Labour came to Ottawa, along with its affiliates IBEW, the boilermakers, steelworkers, Unifor and the operating engineers to say that Alberta workers want a new deal, one that is based on investing in a clean energy alternative. I understand the Deputy Prime Minister has met with the Alberta workers.

I have not seen any support for the position of the Alberta Federation of Labour from the Conservatives in Alberta. Does my hon. colleague support the work of the Alberta Federation of Labour and the energy workers it represents on getting the government to invest in a clean energy future?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, where is the money going to come from? We are broke.

I appreciate my colleague's perspective. I agree we need to have good jobs for all Canadians and an innovative look at that, but we are not resilient, and it is because of the spending. We need to make sure we have a resilient economic plan. Money does not grow on trees. We cannot print money forever. Those are realities I would ask my colleagues, particularly the Liberals and the NDP, who vote together on these matters, to address.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my speech tonight with an example from the real world. Let us say that Bob, for lack of a better name, was hired by a company to specifically develop targets to meet the goals of that business, and they wanted Bob to set not only the goals and the targets for that business but also the plan to achieve them. If I said that Bob had been working there for seven years, had presented numbers and targets that he was going to do for the company multiple times and failed every single time, most Canadians would rightfully think that Bob does not deserve a seventh chance. Bob deserves to be fired. The company may want to take a different approach to how they meet the goals and targets they set for themselves.

We have watched the exact same thing happen here in Ottawa for the past seven years. For seven years, we have had our own Bob on the Liberal benches. We have had numerous ministers stand time and time again, who always have nice backdrops and use every buzzword, platitude and virtue signal possible, to talk about what they are going to do for the environment on issue A or B, how they are going to set a new target and how they will meet it. Every single time, they have not met any of the targets they set when it came to emissions reductions. One would think maybe they came close a couple of times. They did not come close even once.

During the pandemic there was a drop in emissions when we were locked down, businesses were shut down and people were at home. As we have opened up in the past couple of years, we have returned to the same failed results that the Liberal and NDP coalition have come together on: higher emissions and the absolute opposite of what their plans and targets were.

Tonight, we are on the floor of the House of Commons talking about environmental issues and, specifically, the confidence the House has in the Liberals and NDP over the course of the next couple of years, however long that arrangement may last, and the faith and confidence that Canadians do not have in them to follow through on anything they have to say when it comes to the environment.

In this country after seven years of a Liberal government, we have an emissions crisis, according to its own numbers that we need to reduce, which are going up every single year. It has a record of setting targets, never following through and breaking every single promise it has ever made on it. It also promised to cap it at $50 a tonne. That will triple in the coming years.

Not only do we have an environmental crisis, according to the government's own targets, but we have an economic one created here too. We spend a lot of time on the floor of House of Commons talking about inflation, talking about the cost of living and, more than ever before, talking about how more Canadians are struggling to make ends meet while the environmental promises that were made, with all the right words, at the end of the day achieve very few results. It is actually the opposite. Again, they are not even coming close to what has been said and promised to Canadians.

A key piece of that plank of the Liberals' environmental platform, we argue, is not actually an environmental plan. It is a tax plan when it comes to the carbon tax. The carbon tax is driving up the price of everything, and it is now creating an economic crisis in our country when it comes to gas, transportation, home heating, groceries, rent, construction or whatever else.

We have the opportunity. When the Liberals propose and bring forward a bill on anything to do with the environment, after several years, numerous broken promises and the number of times the Liberals promised something they did not actually have the ability to deliver and follow through on, when they seek forgiveness afterward and ask for that fourth, fifth or sixth chance to say that this time they mean it and this time they have a plan to actually do what they say they are going to do, Canadians, rightfully, do not buy it anymore.

When we look at a specific piece of legislation, Bill S-5, and what the government would be tasked with doing in the coming years when it comes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canadians rightfully have watched public accounts, read the environment commissioner's reports and read the Auditor General's reports, which say the government is saying one thing and has a complete lack of ability to do the other.

We have talked about a different approach to environmental issues. We believe, and our new leader has said this several times, which is resonating with more and more parts of this country, that technology and the evolution and development of it here at home are much better than the carbon tax plan that is being supported by the Liberals, the NDP and members of the Green Party.

The reality is that everything that the government touches these days makes the situation worse and it makes it more expensive. What we need to do is not increase taxes during these challenging times.

The other side has had the opportunity, through their environmental priorities, to raise taxes in the name of a carbon tax, saying that their solution would solve this problem. They said to just trust them and they will deliver on it. The cost of living and inflation has been driven up. Emissions are going up. Still, despite setting new targets and new plans and using all of the platitudes and all the buzzwords over and over again, they are not achieving. They are failing.

We are proposing a different path. It is time not to triple the carbon tax in the coming years. It is time to actually get rid of it—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Bill S-5 is not about the carbon tax. This is not an opportunity to talk about future plans for campaigns or anything like that. Bill S-5 is about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and I think that if the members opposite are going to speak to it, they should speak directly to the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I will remind everyone in the chamber today that we are speaking to a specific bill, so I would maybe ask people to wrap things up. There are about two minutes left in the hon. member's speech.

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the hon. member for his intervention. I would be very uncomfortable that we are highlighting the failures of the carbon tax and the government's broken promises. I appreciate the opportunity to reiterate what I just said in my speech. The Liberals say things when it comes to the environment. They propose legislation, targets, plans, spending and taxes in the name of the environment, but every single time, when the reality comes, they get very uncomfortable about being called out on their record.

They say every word salad and buzzword out there when it comes to the environment, yet they do nothing and actually have the opposite result. They drive up the cost of living. They drive up inflation. They are perpetuating two crises, an environmental protection crisis and an economic one now too.

On Bill S-5, I will use it as a perfect example It says in this legislation that the government will set out specific criteria for the government to look at managing or regulating a substance. It talks about ensuring that plans for new substances that may be toxic will be developed in 24 months. If we go back and look at the words that are proposed and the actual action plan, and do not take my word for it but take the Parliamentary Budget Officer's, the Auditor General of Canada's or the environment commissioner's word for it, the government says one thing and that it means well, using every good word possible, but it fails time and time again.

The Liberals and the other parties do not like talking about the failure of the carbon tax and their environmental policy. After seven years of failure, I agree with them. It would be pretty painful to talk about the economic realities they have created and the environmental record they have created in this country.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I look around the chamber. One of the things that is very important while we are having debates is to ensure we always have quorum, and I do not believe we have quorum in the chamber right now.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always love when they call quorum, but I do not know if the member counted people who are online.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will look to the Table to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

We have 21, so I am satisfied that we do have quorum.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague opposite, during his speech on Bill S-5, raised some pretty valid concerns and some important issues that, while I was knocking on doors this weekend, I heard from my neighbours as well. However, in talking about Bill S-5, or actually not talking about Bill S-5, we are removing time from the Order Paper and talking about these issues.

My friend and colleague wanted to talk about carbon pricing, so I have a quote for him. It reads, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms” and “we'll tie [our] carbon price...to the European Union”.

Just for the record, the European price on pollution right now, the carbon price, is about 80 euros, which is much higher than the $50 in Canada. That quote was from the “the more you burn, the more you earn” platform the Conservative Party ran on in the most recent federal election.

Also, I heard earlier tonight that if one does not have alternatives or something to replace it with, then one does not really have much of an argument. The members opposite had an opportunity over the last little while, as we debated Bill S-5 at nauseam, longer than one usually talks about a bill implementation act, to talk about some real world examples to help the environment, to provide a healthy environment or at least to provide people with those rights. However, I have not heard any of those ideas, so I will give my friend the opportunity.

Does he want to institute a new type of carbon price? Is there something else he would like to recommend or suggest to protect our environment, or are we just hot airing it tonight in the House of Commons?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for raising the carbon tax during this debate and giving me the opportunity to respond. I really appreciate it, because when he talks about 80 euros over in Europe and only $50 here, it gives me the perfect opportunity to remind the Liberal benches and the NDP that they are going to triple the carbon tax in the coming years to $170.

It gives me the opportunity to raise the Parliamentary Budget Officer report that says, “most households will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing” and household costs “exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income.”

It gives me the opportunity to remind the Liberal government that, on every single environmental target and promise it has made when it comes to emissions reduction, it has failed. All it is doing is raising the cost of living on people at a time when they need it the least.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for hours, days and even weeks now, I have been hearing my Conservative colleagues talk about the carbon tax and how the oil companies are going to pass the tax on to consumers.

I might have a suggestion, and I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. We could enshrine an obligation in the act to ensure that the carbon tax is paid directly out of the oil companies' profits and not passed on to consumers. I think the oil companies can well afford it, considering their record profits.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will respectfully completely disagree with the premise and principle of what the Bloc is saying. At the end of the day, it is using the carbon tax as a tax to add to the price of doing business, whether it be in the oil and gas sector or any other sector.

What we have seen is the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Green Party support carbon taxes over the course of the last several years. We have not seen emissions go down in any meaningful way in the right direction. What we have seen is the cost of living, groceries and home heating rise and a cost of living crisis in this country. When we talk about emissions reductions, we are talking about that coming from technology, carbon capture and storage, small nuclear modular reactors and so forth, which can be in our energy sector. That is a good way to keep the cost of living down and keep our emissions down as well.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is not about what the bill is supposed to be about, but there has been a focus on carbon tax, so I am going to ask my question about that and the fact that the Conservatives are so focused on it. My hon. colleague from the Bloc tried to ask about corporate greed.

The member is from Ontario. We saw the Conservative provincial government take the tax off gas prices in Ontario, yet interestingly, those gas prices have gone right back up. Yesterday I had to pay $1.78 at the pumps. Maybe the member could explain to me why that occurred, if corporate greed is not the reason for that.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say to the NDP on this front is that the last thing we need is an escalation and a tripling of the carbon tax for families, including those in the city of London and across the province of Ontario.

The record that we hold up on Bill S-5 is that the NDP keeps falling for Liberal promises when they do not deliver. It is time for them to stop backing them up. It is time for them to start holding Liberals to account on the environment and everything else.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add some comments on Bill S-5 tonight.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of my colleagues, members of the House and our colleagues in the Senate for the hard work and insightful debate that has already occurred on this legislation. As someone who farmed for decades and who was actively involved in many agricultural organizations, I was always attuned to concerns regarding the federal government's policies and regulations.

When I was first elected in the Manitoba Legislature, Premier Filmon, now the former premier, asked me take on the role of the environment, to be the shadow minister of the environment in Manitoba. I wondered why that would be so important to him at that time. I suddenly realized, with all of my farming and agricultural background, that the environment would probably be one of the most important issues facing agriculture in the next 30 years. It certainly has been in the last 25 years or so. That was a very important role to play.

A lot of the time we would rely on farmer-led organizations to keep us abreast of what the government was doing, particularly on approving crop protection products that we wanted to use as farmers. Some of the time we would get news reports and would have to write our elected officials to tell us what was really happening on the regulatory side of things. Quite frankly, regulations which get determined by departments and Treasury Board cabinet committee do not get sufficient attention in this place.

As farmers know, we must take care of the soil, water and air to ensure that our operations are sustainable. My dad had a quote, something that he taught me very young. He said, “If you look after the land, it will look after you.”

Farmers are stewards of the land, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is good for business. In the past couple of decades, there has been a tremendous amount of innovation in the agricultural sector. From the chemical farmers use, to how they apply them, they are light years from where they were back in the days when my father started farming in Elgin, Manitoba.

On the farm, we used crop protection products all the time. One example of this might be the fact that, when I started growing peas in 1971, there were very few chemicals that could be used on them at all. Today, there is a plethora of products out there to kill things, such as thistles, millet and wild oats, and these were not available to farmers in those days.

Due to the advancements in machinery, seed technology and the use of chemicals, farmers are now producing more food per acre than ever before. Hopefully that trend will continue. As our leader, the new leader of the Conservative Party has repeatedly said, we want to make Canada the breadbasket of the world. We have great opportunities.

However, due to the illegal invasion and brutal war currently being carried out in Ukraine by the Putin regime, we recognize how important the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector is for the world. Some of my colleagues were just referring to the importance of that food production capability earlier this evening.

A lot of the time Canadian farmers would see that crop protection products would be approved in like-minded nations, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and others, while taking a considerable amount of time to get approved in Canada. One example is, when I was a farm leader, we were dealing with products that were used in North Dakota but could not be used in Manitoba because the rules were different between their environmental protection agency and our pest management review board in Canada, in those days. The one that was most important at that time, when I was a wheat grower president, was dealing with fusarium in wheat.

Due to the processes set up, there is always a concern, as I was just referring to, that delays could impede access to the newest and most effective crop protection products available for the agriculture sector. At the end of the day, farmers want—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have enormous respect for my colleague and his deep knowledge of agriculture. I am wondering if we have gone to Private Members' Business on an agriculture bill, or are we on Bill S-5?

I am certainly very interested in agriculture. I just do not see that he talking about Bill S-5.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will continue to remind folks to stick to the bill at hand, but I am giving them lots of leeway here as well.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his concern and for raising that with me. I do appreciate that fact, but I want to point out that we are in favour of moving the bill through second reading. I am, at least, and I am sure my colleagues are as well. However, I think this is very relevant because I am coming to the point where I want to say what I hope happens at committee with the bill. At the end of the day, farmers want a science-led approval process that is based in fact rather than hyperbole.

With that in mind, I will reference some very sage words that my friend and colleague Senator Robert Black said while debating this legislation. His words are incredibly important, so I would like to quote him directly because we have not really had a review since back in the 1980s with regard to soil science in Canada. He said:

...I have recently learned from a few agricultural stakeholders that there are minor concerns about the inclusion of and language around a precautionary principle throughout the bill, particularly since it states that a weight-of-evidence approach and a precautionary approach should be taken.

Members of the agricultural community are concerned that it’s commonly understood that a precautionary approach is used in the absence of data. A weight-of-evidence approach, on the other hand, suggests there is evidence in place.

While the balance between the precautionary principle and weight-of-evidence approaches referenced in the bill isn’t new, as it already is in CEPA, there is a need for clarity as to how it is to be applied to the broader subset of potentially toxic substances this bill brings into CEPA consideration.

It is important to note that there is existing guidance on how the two are balanced by Environment and Climate Change Canada. However, agricultural stakeholders have highlighted the critical need to ensure the end result is as fully informed decision making as possible. And I agree with their concern that Canadian regulators should have a clear mandate to pursue additional evidence where it’s found lacking.

Ultimately, given the important role this bill will play in evaluating substances present in our environment, I believe that where there is an absence of data, there should be legislated processes and mechanisms to request more data. I am hopeful that members of this chamber will consider such a matter at committee and investigate how we can possibly strengthen this bill to ensure its success.

I will close by saying that I echo what Senator Black had to say, and I hope the committee that ultimately studies this legislation, which is what I referenced earlier, invites numerous agricultural witnesses to get a fulsome analysis of their views on the bill. A prime example, in reference to Senator Sparrow, is the study he did and the books he wrote about the development and protection of our soils, which are completely relevant in this whole area. Although some may say that the agricultural industry is a bit of a stretch from Bill S-5, it is completely relevant if we listen to my colleagues who have already spoken to the bill. They noted food security in the future and being able to make sure that we have fertilizer for use in production and for maintaining but hopefully increasing the food supply in the world, because it is under attack as we speak.

I, for one, welcome the modernization management plan in Canada, if done correctly, with the aim of improving the environment and having an efficient process for crop protection products to be approved.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting for a number of hours today listening to members, particularly from the Conservative Party, talk about this legislation. Many of their comments have been brought to our attention over issues of relevancy. What I have found throughout the debate is that members have talked about passing this bill and getting it to committee, recognizing that there is a need to look at the possibility of amendments. However, it seems the Conservative leadership behind the curtains in the back room is determined not to allow the bill to get through second reading.

Given the fact that it has been before Parliament now for many months and that everyone in the chamber, at least by party, is supporting the legislation, it seems to me that this is the type of legislation that should pass into committee. I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on the need or desire of the House to see the bill looked at in committee.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is before the House. Many of us on the Conservative side of the House have stated we are in favour of the bill. I even pointed out in my presentation the types of witnesses that I hope go before the committee when it is discussing Bill S-5, this environmental management bill. None of us wants toxic substances.

I pointed out very clearly in my presentation tonight what is required in the agricultural industry to keep it vibrant. There have been huge technological changes and improvements made in the environmental use of products in the agricultural industry, and I use it as an example only because it is one I am familiar with. The same thing applies in forestry, mining and many other industries as well.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of legislation to protect the environment, transparency is very important, particularly regarding access to data. We need to know what we are talking about.

Would the member be in favour of making data on the environmental impacts of various industrial sectors, including agriculture, more accessible?

Perhaps people might realize that our farmers can also be part of the solution, particularly through agroforestry, and realize how carbon capture can be done through agriculture.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course I do. I believe we need to make sure we have as much clear data as possible. That is why I asked for certain types of individuals to come forward in the debate on this very bill. We need that expertise, as the member said, not just in the agricultural industry, but in mining, forestry and others as well, to see how it will impact not only the land but our other natural areas, such as waterways and the air in many of our cities and industrial areas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember being a city councillor in Penticton, where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans told the Penticton planning department that there was a fish habitat area in a chunk of land where we wanted to put in some stairs and it was prohibited. It turned out it was just a golf course's water hazard. There are issues when Ottawa says something falls under a particular definition that is not conducive or recognizable by the locals.

Amendment 19 introduces a new term, “vulnerable environment”, in reference to products that contain a substance or release a substance into the environment. If I were a farmer and someone in Ottawa started talking about vulnerable environments, especially at a time when farmers are having to put resources into new capital, new techniques and different types of new harvesting methods, to suddenly have these uncertain terms being injected into it would concern me. Does it raise the concerns of the member and does he think it raises the concerns of his constituents?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, part of my presentation tonight was to make people aware of the concern the agricultural industry has. I pointed out that we need to have people on the ground who are utilizing these products and systems, because there are many land-use systems that we could be using to improve the types of agriculture production that we are using today, which would help solidify food security in the world. That is what I am referring to here.

We cannot do things that inhibit farmers from being able to feed the world. We are fortunate in Canada that we always have enough food, but we cannot take that for granted, as some of my other colleagues have said tonight. We need to make sure people know the rules around what can be used to produce food.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have five minutes, so I will pick and choose my talking points. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this bill on behalf of the good residents of Brantford—Brant.

By way of background, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 is the first major update since that time. The Liberals have had five years to bring this forward, and they failed to do so in a timely manner.

The bill recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and requires the government to protect this right. However, the right is not defined in the act, and may be balanced with social, economic, health, scientific or other relevant factors.

Bill S-5 also puts in language to highlight the government's commitment to implementing UNDRIP and recognizing the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing the toxicity of a substance, as well as the importance of minimizing risks posed by exposure to toxic substances.

I want to highlight that this is an environmental bill. I would like to take the opportunity with the time I have remaining to highlight the government's failures on the environment.

The first is that the Liberal government has never met a single carbon emissions reduction target in all of its years in government.

The second is that carbon emissions have gone up under the Liberal government.

The third is that the carbon tax is an absolute failure. It has not reduced emissions, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that the majority of Canadians pay more in carbon taxes than they get back in rebates. That is a fact, but what we routinely hear on that side of the House is that the Liberals like to rewrite that narrative.

In 2022, the commissioner of the environment released 10 reports on the performance of the Liberal government in terms of protecting the environment. More than half of the reports show that the government was failing to meet its targets. To echo the comments of several of my colleagues today and on other days, the Liberal government has never had an environmental plan; it has a tax plan.

With respect to Bill S-5, we Conservatives have some concerns about the amendments passed in the Senate. The Senate passed 24 amendments, 11 of which made the bill significantly worse.

I want to go over some key points:

Canada's chemical management plan is a leader in the world.

Bill S-5 modernizes the CEPA and will ensure that a risk-based approach to chemical management is preserved in Canada.

Canada has completed more risk assessments and introduced more risk-management instruments than any other jurisdiction.

The bill recognizes a right to a healthy environment, which we fully support.

Ultimately, the Conservatives will support this bill, but we will be seeking amendments. The bill talks about a healthy environment, but it says nothing about healthy water. I want to point out, as another failure of the government, that when we look at the long- and short-term water advisories across this country, we still have 29 long-term drinking water advisories.

I will end there, as my time is up.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

When we return, the member will have five minutes remaining and then five minutes for a question and answer period.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill S‑5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S‑5.

I will give a bit of background for people listening this afternoon.

Bill S-5 is an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, CEPA, has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 is the first major update of this very important bill.

I just want to remind people watching that if they look at the word “conservative”, the root of the name of our party, it means to conserve. We have always been committed to protecting our ecosystems and our environment.

There are some things in this bill that are good and there are some things that are not so good, which I want to explain. Let us start by talking about what is good and what is supportable in this bill right from the start.

This bill modernizes our environmental regulations in the act. As I said in my opening, it has been a long time and it is definitely overdue. It also reduces some of the red tape. This is a good thing. It helps our competitiveness. It helps people do business. It helps the environmental assessments get done and done properly.

It also allows other ministers to manage substances where another federal act is more appropriate. Again, these are more efficiencies.

It allows environmental risk assessment for drugs to be done solely under the food and drugs regulations and it removes duplicate monitoring under CEPA. Again, as someone who has served as the parliamentary secretary for the environment and health, I see how these work together. I see these as very positive things.

There are some things in here that are not so good.

The bill does introduce the concept of the right to a healthy environment. Again, this is a good thing. However, the bad thing about it is that it is not defined. What is the right to a healthy environment?

The Liberals have had a long time to approach this and define it so that it gives certainty. Unfortunately, they are going to have two years to define that. Anything that adds uncertainty, I find, is not a good thing.

The bill also has several amendments put forth by the Senate that really are not in the best interests of Canadians. I will talk about one of them.

One of the amendments introduces a new term called a “vulnerable environment” without defining it. This is more uncertainty. It gives a little bit more power to the minister, which is very subjective. Business and environmental institutions want some certainty, so that is a bit of a problem.

What I find is a big problem with it is it allows anyone to request that a minister assess whether a substance is capable of becoming toxic. Let us look at this a little more closely.

That means that anyone in Canada can bring forward a letter or request to a minister and the time this would take and the number of people who would be interested in doing this could be unbelievably large. In one part of the bill, it does help remove red tape but then in another part like this, it increases it.

I would like to talk about the plastics industry. I am from Oshawa where we like to manufacture stuff. One of the things that we have a history of manufacturing is automobiles. Plastics are one of those substances that allow automobiles to be lighter and more efficient, which, when we are thinking about the environment, is a good thing.

With this bill, what we have now is that plastics manufactured products are listed in schedule 1, part 2. The Alberta government is actually taking the government to court over this because it is very, very serious. The government renamed schedule 1 so that it is no longer called a list of toxic substances. However, substances are still referred to as toxic in the act. This is problematic.

To explain it to the House, I looked up the definition of “toxic”, so I would like to read it into the record. Toxic means containing or being poisonous material, especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation; it is also defined as being of, relating to or being caused by a toxin or another poison.

This is a problem. We just came out of a pandemic, for example, and plastics were an extremely important part of our being able to manage that. As I said, for car parts, where I come from, this is going to be really important, and I do not think the government has looked at the economic cost of changing this and calling plastics toxins.

It is something I am really worried about. I think we have to look at this in committee and make sure we change it, because I wonder what the motivation is here. I think it is going to cause a lot of fear. We can pick up anything here in the House, and whether it is a phone or an earpiece, they are all plastics. Again, I wonder what the motivation is.

I mentioned that Alberta is taking the government to court over the legislation. It seems the government, whenever it gets the chance, wants to beat up Alberta. It is horrible, because plastic is another economic driver, and I am very uncomfortable with the legislation.

We can elaborate a bit on the plastics. What do people think about in this past pandemic when they think about plastics? They think about PPE. They think about something that is very sanitary. It has trusted performance. We can be sure it is going to do what it has to do, and it is very convenient, so if we start to call these things toxic and we are dealing with them in health care, it does not even make sense. What are going to be the options for physicians in hospitals, if they cannot use plastic?

In Oshawa, we see what we can build cars with, but sometimes there is no real option other than plastics, so what is going to happen if we enforce the legislation? What I see happening is that it is going to drive plastic manufacturing outside the country. A lot of it is going to be driven to areas that do not have really great environmental laws and protections, like we have here. I could mention China, and maybe I will talk a bit more about that, if I can get to it.

When we are looking at plastics, everybody would like to see less plastic, for example, go into the oceans. Everybody is okay and in agreement with that, but Canada is not the problem here, so we would be putting something in, when 93% of the plastics dumped into the oceans come from 10 rivers, and seven of those are in Asia. One is the Yangtze River in China, and two are in Africa, so the government would be driving jobs out of Canada. It just does not make sense. We do this really well. Canada is not the problem. We should not be getting punished because the government really has not thought this through.

Let us take a look at the competitiveness issue. No matter what, if we are not manufacturing plastics here in this country, we are still going to have to use them. I know the Prime Minister does not really talk about monetary policy, and he does not really think about it, but other MPs in the House have to. We really have to look after our communities that are going to be hit really hard, for example, this winter, so let us take a step back here and allow the legislation to go to committee, because having these plastic bans, sometimes, sounds good, and the Liberals like things that sound really good. However, the bans may have a negative effect on the environment, because we would have to substitute different products.

Maybe I could talk about how this is starting to happen and affect everyday people. I took my mom out for dinner last night. She is 94 years old. One of the places she loves to go is Swiss Chalet, so we had a drink. Instead of a plastic straw, we got one of these paper straws, and I will just go into a bit of statistical analysis here. We go into this restaurant, and instead of a plastic straw, which takes 39 kilojoules of energy to make and emits 1.5 grams of carbon dioxide in its life cycle, we now have a paper straw that takes 96 kilojoules of energy to make and emits 4.1 grams of CO2 over its life cycle, so the problem with a lot of these Liberal policies is that they sound good, but they really are going in the wrong direction.

I would like to continue. I know I am running out of time, but I welcome questions from my colleagues.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that Swiss Chalet was an excellent choice by the member's mother at 94 years old. I would love to know the secret to living that long, and maybe he could share that with me later. Maybe it is Swiss Chalet.

In all seriousness, I have heard this argument from the other side of the House a number of times, about plastic straws versus paper straws. Members may know that former Progressive Conservatives, like Brian Mulroney, did not care where acid rain started and did not care who was directly responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. They saw them as global problems, and they saw Canada's unique position to be leaders in confronting those problems.

Why are the Conservatives insistent on drilling down into the micro details of how many kilojoules are created during the process of making something, rather than looking at the global problem and seeing Canada's opportunity to lead in terms of change that the globe needs?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kingston. Hopefully one day we get to share that chicken at Swiss Chalet, and hopefully he is paying this time.

Let us actually talk about results. The member talked about Brian Mulroney, and he is exactly right: Brian Mulroney realized that we had to take action, but the action had to have results.

I brought up the issue of the straw, because literally millions of straws are used every year, and it is absolutely going in the wrong direction. Add that to some of the other Liberal policies, like the carbon tax, for example, which we see has done absolutely nothing to lower emissions. Let us look at the record of the Liberal Party. It has not actually met any of its targets.

We can talk, and we can kind of massage things, but at the end of the day, Conservatives on this side want results. At the same time, we want to make sure our economy keeps growing and that we are a good place to do business.

We will support the bill, but we have to send it to committee because of some of these amendments, and because there are problems with the bill.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a few things I would like to say to him, but I do not think that I have enough time.

First, Canada obviously has a plastic problem. Only a tiny fraction of our plastic gets recycled. It is ending up in rivers in China and elsewhere because we are sending our garbage to the other side of the world. We have pawned our problem off on others.

Second, when I look at the amendments the bill makes, it is easy to see all of the factors that need to be considered before a substance is deemed to be toxic. The minister is not the one who decides whether or not a substance is toxic. There are many factors that must be considered.

Finally, I thank my colleague and the opposition party for saying that they will vote in favour of the bill so that we can study it in committee.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

What I am talking about here is perspective, and we have to look at what Canada can do. I was quite correct when I said 93% of the plastics that go into the oceans come from 10 rivers that are not in Canada. However, we are successful at recycling, and we can get better, but we cannot put in something that is going to be doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

As I said, we have so many issues here with the carbon tax, and I could go on and on about that: how it is increasing our costs and decreasing our competitiveness. What we want to see as Conservatives is something that is really going to be effective in lowering greenhouse gases and doing something positive for the environment.

I welcome my colleague's comments, and hopefully we can get something together that will make a positive impact for Canada.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. I am happy to hear that he is looking for results and is in support of the bill's going to committee to get some work done.

New Democrats have been calling for the creation of an office of environmental justice to address the disproportionate impacts of toxic substances and environmental hazards on Black, indigenous and racialized communities. The U.S. has had an Office of Environmental Justice for nearly 30 years now, whereas Canada lacks a coordinated capacity to ensure that racialized and disadvantaged communities have the same opportunity to enjoy environmental protections as other Canadians.

Would the member support the creation of an office of environmental justice like the one that exists in the United States?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the important things we can talk about when we debate it at committee. There are many things we can do as a country to make improvements. Unfortunately, the way the bill is written right now, it just is not going to do that.

Hopefully, we will get an opportunity to chat a bit more in committee.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by wishing you a belated happy birthday.

I am pleased to rise on Bill S-5. I have not spoken in the House for a while. I have been too busy covering committees. It is nice to be back.

Of all the hundreds of bills I have debated, this one has to have the sexiest title: an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, and to repeal a couple of words that I cannot pronounce Virtual Elimination Act. This bill basically replaces Bill C-28, which the government brought in during a previous Parliament.

When introducing this bill, the environment minister talked up the usual propaganda. He talked about Canadians knowing the urgency of the need for this bill and said that the government is responding to this urgency. I have to laugh, because, again, this bill existed in the previous Parliament, but the environment minister was part of the government that called an early election and effectively killed the bill, using crass political opportunism to take advantage of what were favourable polls at the time and also to kill the Winnipeg lab inquiry. Basically, it killed the bill, the same one that is so urgent that the government was seized with it but decided to waste a year by killing it with a cynical election.

Generally, as my colleague from Oshawa commented before me, we support Bill S-5. Our chemical management plan is probably the best in the world, along with our chemical engineers, especially in Alberta at DuPont. I used to work in Fort Saskatchewan, at a chemical plant there, with lots of great jobs, lots of very strong investment and high-paying jobs, which is very good for Canada.

This bill will also modernize the CEPA and ensure it sticks with a risk-based approach to management, as opposed to the more burdensome red tape and growing hazards-based approach.

The bill also recognizes a right to a healthy environment, which I generally support. I mean, who would not support a right to a healthy environment? However, I have to say I have great concerns that it does not define what that is in this bill, and it gives the government two years to do this. The failure to define this issue can have great implications in the future. I am very wary of a bill from the Liberal government that says, “Just trust us on this issue and we will get back to you.” There were five years of consultations on this specific issue, and the government is asking for two more.

Of course, I have to say that five years late from this government is not bad. The government is seven years behind on icebreakers; seven years behind on joint supply ships; seven years behind on fighter plane replacements; seven years behind on the offshore patrol ships; six or seven years behind on fixing the Phoenix pay fiasco; years late on buying handguns for our armed forces; years late on the frigate program, which has gone from $92 billion to $306 billion; years late on introducing whistle-blower protection; years late in getting ATIPs processed. I actually have some ATIPs that are so late and so old that they could have gone through a graduate program at university in the time it has taken for them still not to have been brought before this House. That is just to give colleagues the idea.

Those are just the examples that I am dealing with out of the operations and estimates committee. I imagine every single person in this House has further examples. While I fear outright malfeasance from the Liberals in leaving this issue open, I generally accept it, knowing that given the incompetence of the government, it will never get done.

Speaking of not getting stuff done on the environment, we have had lots of big announcements from the government. As I mentioned, the environment minister, when introducing Bill S-5, talked about the urgency of getting it done. He said Canadians have an urgency; the government has an urgency.

The Liberal government talks a lot but delivers very little. At the same time, we have the same environment minister in the paper this week, with a headline saying something about the environment minister slamming oil companies for sitting idle on the climate. That is from the government that killed Bill C-28, this bill, the urgent bill that was before the last Parliament, yet it is blaming the oil companies for not taking action.

We have some Alberta oil companies and transmission companies that are working on the environment, not sitting idle.

TransCanada PipeLines is investing in solar and wind for both its customers and to power its ops. Enbridge is building green energy to power its products. It is investing in 24 wind farms, five waste-heat recovery facilities and hydrogen facilities as well. These are companies that are investing in green technology, despite the government planning to phase them out and despite getting slammed by the environment minister for doing nothing. Both these companies, as well, have committed to zero carbon emissions by 2050, or neutral anyway. Suncor, CNRL and others, since 2012, have spent $10 billion on green energy R and D. Suncor, CNRL and Synovus have spent over a billion dollars in 2020 alone in green R and D.

If members remember, in 2020, during the worst of COVID, oil had a negative price. Oil companies and people had to pay to store the oil. CNRL lost a quarter of a billion dollars in 2020, Imperial Oil lost $1.3 billion and Suncor lost $3.2 billion, yet they were still investing in green energy R and D. Those are the same people the environment minister is slamming for sitting on the sidelines. They are actually getting stuff done while the government is not. That was $5 billion in losses just for those three companies, yet they still invested a billion dollars. It was $10 billion alone in the last decade.

This is from an industry that has had to weather the downturn in 2014 in oil, the 2020 crash and the Alberta provincial NDP trying to block the pipeline. The former NDP premier actually went on TV and said that she would block northern gateway. Of course, we also had the Liberal government with Bill C-69, which was the “no more pipelines” bill; Bill C-48; and everything else it has been trying to do to destroy that industry, which is investing in green R and D.

The environment minister attacks the companies for not doing enough, but they are doing their part for Canada. I would suggest to the environment minister, when he attacks these people for not doing enough, that people in glass houses should not be throwing rocks, or in his case people in glass greenhouses should not be throwing rocks.

I am going to look at the minister's own department results. These are numbers from the Treasury Board. These are not my numbers. These are not made-up numbers. This is from GC InfoBase, from the departmental results. In 2021, the environment minister achieved, with his department, 14% of its targets. That is one out of every seven. In 2020, it was 27%. In 2019, it was 23%. In the department's best year in the last three years, it barely got to 25% or one-quarter of its targets.

The minister has the gall to attack Alberta's oil industry for not doing its part. He attacks Canada's largest exporter of goods. The minister attacks the largest industrial employer in Canada of indigenous people. The largest investor in green R and D in the private sector, he attacks for not doing enough, yet he presides over the abysmal failure in his own department of just 14%. I am wondering if the environment minister would have stopped at scaling just 14% of the stairs at the CN Tower when he was illegally doing his protest and consider 14% a success.

There are other failures from the current government. The Auditor General reports in the “Greening Government Strategy” report that the government has failed on its results. Those are the exact words from the Auditor General. The report states:

...government decision makers, parliamentarians, and Canadians do not...know...whether the government will meet its...target.

It actually gets worse. The Treasury Board requires, as part of the greening government strategy, that assistant deputy ministers sign off on the integrity of the government's emissions reduction reports. Seventy-four per cent of the bureaucrats have refused to sign off on their mission targets.

We will support Bill S-5, but we actually need action and not just talk from the government.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians have seen the impacts of climate change first-hand. We have seen the impact of what happens to our communities, which have been devastated by flooding, fire, and so on and so forth. I sat here and listened to the member opposite talk about failures of the government to promote the ongoing destruction of the environment.

I wonder how this member reconciles his views with the fact that people like Preston Manning have come forward and said that carbon pricing is a good idea. Stephen Harper, the godfather of the Conservative Party, agrees that carbon pricing is a good idea.

What is the Conservative Party's policy on climate change? What is its plan to stop climate change? I would love to know.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Vancouver, so it is nice to chat with someone from there. It is funny he talks about what we would do. What we would not do is put out government emissions reports that our own bureaucrats refused to sign off on and refused to state, yes, those were correct.

We would not do that. We would have results achieved. We would not sit by and congratulate ourselves for failing 86% of our targets. Those targets talked about engaging indigenous people in consultations on prosperity on resource development. We would get stuff done. We would not just sit there. We would not fly across the country from Vancouver to Ottawa and then complain about carbon emissions.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my Conservative colleague shared that reminder about what led up to this bill, about how we got from Bill C‑28 to Bill S‑5, and about how so much time was wasted on what was really a totally pointless election.

As I see it, Bill S‑5 has three elements at its core. They are laid out in clause 2. These three elements are as follows: considering the exposure of vulnerable populations to toxic substances, considering the cumulative effects of toxic substances, and requiring labelling to indicate the risks posed by all products containing toxic substances.

These three elements are worded differently in the current version of this bill.

Does my colleague agree with these elements?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I will be supporting this bill. There are a lot of good points in it. There has been some engagement with the industry, which has commented on what it liked. There are some issues we will be seeking amendments to in committee. Yes, while we will be supporting the bill, there are some amendments we do need to consider.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to my Conservative colleague, I am reminded the Conservative Party has come a long way since Stephen Harper called the climate crisis a socialist plot. They are now at least acknowledging it is real.

There has been alarming information come out in the last couple of days that strikes a great deal of consternation as to whether we will actually be able to keep climate change and the temperature rise below 1.5°C. In fact, we are now looking at a 2°C temperature increase. However, the government, while claiming to care about the climate crisis, has purchased and is expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline, approved the Bay du Nord project and is also talking about expanding LNG exports.

Does my hon. colleague think Canada can meet our Paris accord commitments and reduce carbon emissions in this country? Can we still, at the same time, pursue all of those fossil fuel expansions in this country?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize their ideological base wants to shut down our oil and gas. Our reality is these same issues he has brought forward are the same drivers of our economy and the same drivers of our prosperity that allow us to enjoy the living we have. To move away from this would strip our economy of tens of billions of dollars.

The Auditor General report on the just transition alone states that if we did this, it would be as devastating to Alberta as the cod fishery closures. We are not ready to sacrifice the livelihood of Albertans and many other Canadians for their ideology.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate this afternoon.

I thank my colleague from Edmonton West for his remarks. I do appreciate them.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway talked about a socialist plot. I think there are some socialist plots, but I do not think they involve the environment. They are more or less about wealth redistribution than anything else. The members are quite cagey on the NDP side, so I look forward to answering questions from them after this speech.

A member from Vancouver on the Liberal side asked what the Conservatives' plan is when it comes to the environment. I would put this to him.

Several private members' bills were put forward last session before an unnecessary election was called. One of them was to ban the dumping of raw sewage into the lakes, rivers and oceans, to make sure we could clean up the St. Lawrence River. That private member's bill was put forward by my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle and only God knows why, but the Liberals voted against it. They voted against the ban on dumping raw sewage into our pristine lakes, rivers and oceans in Canada.

When they talk about the environment and what would be the Conservatives' plan, one would think a very good start would be to ensure that we do not put pollutants into our water systems. That would be a rational conversation and something that any government should do. We have the capacity. We have the Liberals' failed Infrastructure Bank, which could have put money into making sure the municipalities had the money to upgrade their infrastructure so we would not be putting raw sewage into our water systems in this country. That would be a start. If the member asks the question again, I may have tripped on the answer to it already.

A bill that was brought forward by the member for York—Simcoe in the last Parliament, and which was part of the Conservative campaign plan, was to make sure that we stop dumping plastics in other countries and to make sure we look after our own waste. Once again, unknown to many in this chamber, the Liberals voted against that private member's bill brought forward by the Conservatives to make sure we have a cleaner and greener environment to be passed on to the next generation.

A couple of those private members' bills we put forward in the last session before the election of 2021 would have definitely been concrete measures to make sure the environment is cleaner. I would like to have that conversation and put on the record that there have been several measures we have looked at as a party to ensure our environment stays clean.

As my friend from Edmonton West said, we will be supporting the bill going to committee for amendments. Because the CEPA has not been amended since 1999, I think there are some things that need to be changed. We look forward to having that conversation at committee.

Another thing we have asked our Liberal counterparts is what their environmental plan is. The bill proposes to change CEPA, but what is their plan to ensure that emissions go down? They have a carbon tax, but that definitely is not an environmental plan. It is a tax scheme. Under the current government, emissions have continued to increase.

The Liberal government has brought forward policies recently, such as, the reduction in fertilizer use on farms across the country, which is not an environmental plan either. That is just a plan to hamstring our producers, ranchers and farmers even more when they are trying to feed the world. That is not a climate plan. We would ask our Liberal colleagues across the way that same question. When I talk to residents in Saskatchewan and around the country, they want to know what the benefit of the fertilizer reduction plan is. One of the biggest things I am asked is if it will result in less food in Canada.

On the flip side, if the Liberals want our farmers and producers to continue to produce the same amount of food with less fertilizer, they are going to have to use more arable land. This would result in more machinery being used and higher fuel consumption because more land has to be used to produce the same amount of food. A lot of the time when we hear about the environmental policies and actions of the Liberals, they have some unintended consequences, because they either have not done their homework or they do not understand what it takes to produce food.

When I see the environment being impacted in different ways when the Liberals bring forward these policies, that is what I like to bring to the table. Maybe they do not understand what it takes to actually produce the food that ends up in grocery stores across the country.

Another thing I would say about our environmental plan is the Conservatives also put forward a policy called the clean air act. For all of these things, we have taken steps to try to ensure we have a cleaner environment for the next generation. I have three young children, and I think everyone in this chamber wants to ensure they have the opportunity to enjoy a clean environment, just as we did growing up as children.

I grew up on a family farm, and we took the sustainability of our farm very seriously. If we did not have grassland, our cattle could not be fed. If we did not have the proper soil and nutrients in our hay lands to produce hay, we did not have feed to feed the dairy cows. I grew up on a dairy farm, so we had to make sure there were nutrients in the soil, that we conserved water and that we had runoff. Tree rows would collect the snow so there would be runoff.

Producers have been environmental stewards for generations, and it is not because of any government policy—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. colleague from Regina—Lewvan, but in the last debate on Bill S-5, the great majority of the speeches had no connection to Bill S-5. I rose on a point of order several times at that time, and I reference at this point Standing Order 11(2), which says that when the attention of the House is called to the conduct of a member whose presentation is irrelevant or repetitious, the member can be asked by the Speaker to discontinue the speech, and if the member continues, the Speaker shall name the member. It is a serious standing order saying that speeches should be relevant.

I have been listening carefully. I have heard a lot about how the Conservatives feel about the Liberals' environmental record, much of which I will agree with, but this debate is on Bill S-5. I feel rather guilty when Liberals ask me why I opposed shutting down debate. Debate has to be about the subject before us, based on the Standing Orders.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for that intervention.

I remind all members of the House that when we are debating, we should stay relevant to the bill at hand. We do give a lot of leeway when it comes to members getting all of their thoughts out.

I will say to the member for Regina—Lewvan that maybe with the three minutes and 40 seconds left in his time, he can get back to the bill.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this time and am glad that I have three minutes left.

I actually feel sorry for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who would not understand that the environment and agriculture go hand in hand and that talking about what we do in agriculture to make sure there is a sustainable environment does actually pertain to the bill. My sympathies go out to her for not having been on a farm and not realizing how important agriculture will be to a clean environment going forward.

This leads me to the next—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this is the treatment I got in the last debate, particularly from a number of members who attacked me for raising our rules.

I know a lot about farms. I am from a rural riding. The hon. member may not know how many dairy farms are in my riding, but this is not about me. This is about trying to listen to the Standing Orders so that this place will work better.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member again for her intervention.

I thought I made myself clear on this, but I will let the member for Regina—Lewvan finish.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that interjection. I know that my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands knows the rules very well, and I appreciate her constantly trying to remind everyone how much better she is at knowing the rules. I appreciate her continuous interjections as well as her thoughts.

I will wrap up with a few comments about the environment.

Once again, as I put forward in the conversation, the Conservatives have had the opportunity to put forward bills that would help the environment and make the environment cleaner. My friend from Lake Simcoe put one forward, and my friend for Regina—Qu'Appelle has put forward bills. When I look at Bill S-5 on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it has not been amended since 1999, to put that on the record. We will be talking about it more, along with amendments, in committee when it goes to committee.

With that, I am very happy to answer any questions members may have on Bill S-5. I cannot wait to hear what my friend from Kingston and the Islands has to ask, because I see he is waving his hand. I will not make him wait any longer so he can take to his feet.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I have a question for the member, because I always get a kick out of when the Conservative plan for dealing with the environment is to talk about dumping sewage into our rivers and lakes. It is a very important issue; I will not dispute that, but I will forgive the member if he does not understand how the sewage system works.

Basically, we have pipes in a municipality, and they all lead to a pool. When that pool fills up, we have to do something with the water. Unfortunately, the legacy of the way municipalities have been created over the last number of decades and centuries in our country is that the stormwater is connected with the sewage water, so when we have increased storm events, those pools fill up faster. There are various different ways that we can control and deal with that problem, and this is what I would like the member to comment on. We could have grey infrastructure solutions, which basically would be to build larger tanks to hold and deal with the increased flow. We could have green infrastructure that tries to localize the sewage more individually, to deal with it before putting it into this network of sewers and pipes that lead to this pool.

I know the Conservatives are against dumping the sewage, and they should be, as we all should be, so I am wondering what their solution is to deal with it. Can he propose a solution?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the presentations of my friend across the way. One thing I put forward, if he was listening to my speech and its relevance to this, was to use the infrastructure bank to ensure municipalities got some of that money so they could upgrade their infrastructure. What I would not have done is use an omnibus budget bill to make sure Montreal could continue to dump millions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence for another 10 to 15 years without talking to anyone about that.

I appreciate the lesson in municipal infrastructure. I live in a municipality as well, and I thank him very much for that, but there is a way the federal government had the capacity to help municipalities make sure they could use that money and not dump raw sewage into our lakes, rivers and oceans. I would say he should take that back to his cabinet and to his Minister of Infrastructure and say that instead of the money leaving here and maybe building pipelines in China, maybe they should build some water infrastructure in Canada.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member shared his views on so many topics, but specifically to Bill S-5, a number of members of Parliament have suggested that the reference to plastics under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is tantamount to a ban on plastics. I just want to make sure that, in reading the bill, the hon. member will agree with me that Bill S-5 would not ban any plastics. Bill S-5 would create the ability for the federal government to move ahead on existing commitments, and not all plastics are on the radar for any regulation. Only a very small number, and far too small a variety of single-use plastic items are slated for regulation. The bill would create the opportunity only for future regulations, and no one is proposing banning all plastics.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conversation, but the conversations we have had in our caucus are to the effect that the legislation would heavily regulate, but not ban, the plastics. I appreciate my hon. colleague's taking the time to ask such a thoughtful question, as I always appreciate her interjections.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things in Bill S-5 that I know is concerning is the ability for anyone in Canada to ask for an assessment of a product. Maybe the member could speak to the challenges the government is going to have, when the government is effectively broken on so many levels and cannot get things done.

What would happen if every Canadian could ask for a substance to be assessed?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is what happens with the government a lot of times. Let us talk about unintended consequences, whether it be with its fertilizer reduction target, its targets in banning plastics, or Bill S-5. A lot of the time, when the government brings forward policies, it has not thought about them and does not know what the actual consequences are going to be. We see this as the government being broken. Passport offices are broken. Immigration is broken. There are so many things the government has gotten wrong over the last seven years. This will probably just be added to the list.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Thursday, November 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at the appropriate time to start Private Members' Business.