Debates of Oct. 31st, 2022

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[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.