House of Commons Hansard #123 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was wrongdoing.

Topics

JusticePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I have two petitions to table before the House today.

The first concerns a situation that is close to my heart. It relates to street crime. The people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, particularly people who are residents in downtown Kamloops, call for this chamber to legislatively respond to recent decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly as they relate to bail.

Foreign AffairsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the government to immediately revoke the permit to return the sanctioned Nord Stream 1 turbines to Russia via Germany, and to enact further economic sanctions on Russia as deemed feasible and desirable.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

November 2nd, 2022 / 4:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Use of Notwithstanding Clause by Ontario GovernmentRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I wish to inform the House that I have received notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. member for Hamilton Centre to rise and make a brief intervention.

Use of Notwithstanding Clause by Ontario GovernmentRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek leave for an emergency debate on the authoritarian use of section 33, the notwithstanding clause, on some of the lowest-paid public sector workers we have here in Ontario. This is an attack on the charter rights of not just the CUPE workers, but all workers across the country.

The $39,000 the workers make is not enough. These workers have had 10 years of deferred wages and many years at a 0% freeze. They are mostly women. The government's use, under Doug Ford, of the notwithstanding clause, pre-empting any kind of negotiations, shows the lack of faith they have in this process.

I stand today in solidarity with the leader of the official opposition in Ontario, Peter Tabuns, and my NDP colleagues in that legislature calling the government on its lies. Doug Ford is absolutely a liar. He is lying about the impacts that it has—

Use of Notwithstanding Clause by Ontario GovernmentRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Order. The usage of that term in the House of Commons is not acceptable. I would ask the member for Hamilton Centre to retract that and find a more appropriate word.

Use of Notwithstanding Clause by Ontario GovernmentRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, that rule only pertains to the members within this House. Given the premier is outside of this House, I will not withdraw my comment, because he is misleading Ontarians on the impact this will have on these workers.

This is serious and it is extortion. He is extorting these workers in order to negotiate in favour of the government. For these reasons and for that purpose, I think it is important for every worker across the country to pay close attention to the premier's use of the notwithstanding clause, because no doubt it will be used for workers in every province across the country unless we stand up for these workers here today.

Speaker's RulingRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I thank the hon. member for Hamilton Centre for his intervention. However, the Chair is not satisfied that his request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

Availability of Children's MedicationsRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I wish to inform the House that I have also received another notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. member for Carleton to rise and make a brief intervention.

Availability of Children's MedicationsRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

4:45 p.m.

Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I think all parents would agree that the matter I am about to raise is indeed an emergency.

Across this country, there have been shortages of medications required for pain relief by small infants and babies. Children's Tylenol, ibuprofen and other medicines are necessary to relieve the often intense pain that young children feel during sickness, teething or other conditions. It has come to be expected that one could go to a local drug store to get these medications. Unfortunately, in Canada, that has not been the case. There have been shortages right across the country. We raised this matter a month ago.

The good news is that in the United States, they do not appear to have this problem. We did check online today and found it was easy to order these medicines, but an American address is needed to get them. The American shelves are stocked, but here in Canada the shelves are empty.

I want to thank the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake who brought this to my attention. She was the one who first alerted me to this crisis. She is a young parent. I am a parent, although not a young one. We were lucky last night. My little one needed children's Tylenol. We had a few pills left, but I cannot imagine what kind of night it would have been for her and us if we had run out.

On behalf of parents right across the country, Conservatives are seeking an emergency debate on how Canada could restore its supply chains and supply parents and children with these necessary medications that are available in other countries, but for some reason that the Prime Minister still cannot explain are not available here in Canada.

Speaker's RulingRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I thank the hon. member for Carleton for his intervention. However, the Chair is not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 28 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 Nunavut, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Taxation; and the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Housing.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen LiberalParliamentary 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?

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

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.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

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?

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

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.