Debates of Oct. 19th, 2022

Bank of Canada Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-253 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #196

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion defeated.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions and the tributes, Government Orders will be extended by 86 minutes.

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 Bow River, Health; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Health; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Health.

Health

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to the motion unanimously adopted on Thursday, October 6, regarding over-the-counter pediatric medication.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled “Housing Accelerator Fund”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada Act

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

moved that Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada, be read the first time.

Madam Speaker, our rich tapestry of artistic expression reflects Canada's cultural diversity, one of our great strengths. Creative expression not only help us to understand the depth and vitality of our own cultural experience, but also presents Canada's unique story to the world through the universal language of art.

The declaration, promoting the essential role of artists and creative expression, recognizes the vitally important role of artists and the arts in Canadian society. It calls for artists to be respected and promoted, and to have the right to intellectual property on their work and to be free from cultural appropriation. The declaration would ensure the fruits of artistic expression are accessible for the enjoyment of all Canadians.

I am honoured to sponsor Senator Bovey's Bill S-208, an act respecting the declaration on the essential role of artists and creative expression in Canada.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Mental Health

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:

That a take-note debate on mental health be held on Thursday, October 20, 2022, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House: (a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; (b) the time provided for the debate be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each; and (c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Post-Secondary Education

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 3,596 Canadians who are deeply concerned about federal funding for graduate students and post-doctoral scholars.

They point out these students are our best and our brightest. They are the life force of discovery and innovation in Canada. They are funded by the federal tri-council funding agencies, but the wages paid to them have not increased since 2003 and now amount to less than minimum wage. They are living in poverty. Therefore, the petitioners ask the government to increase the value of graduate scholarships and post-doctoral fellowships by 48% to match inflation over the past 20 years and to index that value to the consumer price index. They also ask that the number of scholarships and fellowships be increased by 50% so we can truly support their efforts to keep science and innovation alive in Canada.

Pest Management

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Cypress Hills—Grasslands. They are concerned about the government's arbitrary ban of strychnine for the use of the control of Richardson's ground squirrels, otherwise known as gophers. They cause a lot of damage to farmland and to grassland, and they do damage to both the economy and the ecosystem. Therefore, petitioners are signing to ask the health minister to repeal the ban of strychnine use for the control of Richardson's ground squirrels.

Charitable Organizations

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

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of Canadians who are aware that the Liberal Party of Canada was elected with a promise to revoke charitable status for pro-life organizations.

The petitioners are specifically focused on crisis pregnancy centres at this time. They feel these centres serve young women who are seeking assistance in carrying their child to term in a scenario where possibly it is an unexpected pregnancy. They also provide incredible assistance to families, to both parents, and provide for the needs and encouragement of those young mothers. They are calling on the government and members of Parliament to do everything in their power to prevent, block, organize and vote against any effort by the government to revoke the charitable status of pro-life organizations in Canada and, specifically, crisis pregnancy centres.

Government Priorities

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

Madam Speaker, Canadians who signed this petition are concerned about legislation related to a universal basic income. I have received countless messages from my constituents on this. Petitioners are calling on the government to ensure that paycheques can continue to feed families. They are concerned that billions of dollars have been poured into our economy and about the rising costs of everything because of that. They state that universal basic income disincentivizes people from working and maintaining a job and also that taxes would have to be greatly raised in order to pay for a universal basic income.

The petitioners are calling on the government to vote against Bill S-233 and Bill C-223. They also want an end to the carbon tax and inflationary spending. Finally, they would like to see pipelines and other projects built across Canada to ensure that our freedom energy can help free the world and ensure growth in Alberta and Canada.

Age Verification Software

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

Madam Speaker, my second petition is from people across this country who are calling on the government to pass Bill S-210. The petitioners are concerned about how easy it is for young people to gain access to sexually explicit material online, including violent and degrading sexually explicit material. They comment on how this is an important public health and public safety concern. They note that a significant portion of commercially accessible material has no age verification software. Moreover, age verification can be done without breaching privacy rights.

The petitioners note the many serious harms associated with sexually explicit material, including the development of addictions and the development of attitudes favourable to sexual violence and the harassment of women. Finally, these petitioners call on the House of Commons to pass this legislation to protect young minds.

Human Organ Trafficking

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians who are bringing to the attention of the government the illegal practice of human organ harvesting that is going on, particularly in China. They are calling on the federal government to enact resolutions and policies to combat this horrendous activity.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

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

Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[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.