Debates of May 15th, 2023

Bill S-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, to hear the Conservatives complain about time allocation is incredibly rich given what we saw from the Harper government. When a government bill was being debated in the House for the very first time, the Harper government would give notice of time allocation on that same day. The Conservative Party has no leg to stand on when it comes to this particular issue.

Ultimately, this bill started its journey in the Senate. We are now at third reading. We are at a stage where members have acquainted themselves quite well with this bill. I think it has some very important aspects, and I am proud of how our team was able to strengthen the bill.

For this particular bill, with the ways the New Democrats strengthened it, it is important for the House to arrive at a decision so members can make their opinions known on it. Could the minister expand on some of the reasons for this?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite and the NDP for their very thoughtful collaboration on this piece of legislation. It has been extremely important to hear the perspectives of all members, but we appreciate the thoughtfulness of the proposed amendments and the collaborative way in which the party opposite has worked with the government to strengthen the approach.

When we pass this legislation, the outcomes we are all hoping for are better protections and a healthy environment for all Canadians. There are many stories across the country where Canadians' environmental protection has not been considered. In fact, as Minister of Indigenous Services, I have many examples I can and will share through this time period.

There are examples of communities with drinking water that has been irreversibly damaged and contaminated. There are long-standing health conditions relating to environmental contamination; this not only results in ongoing suffering and premature death but also millions, if not billions, of dollars spent to try to ameliorate that contamination.

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

Madam Speaker, moments ago, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes was talking about things that Canadians want in terms of democracy and people having the ability to represent their constituents in debate.

Something else that Canadians want is an opposition that actually does its job; they want an opposition that comes into the House of Commons and does not only criticize and attack individuals all day long, but instead, tries to improve legislation and policy. They want an opposition that respects the fact that once a debate has gone through its natural course, it should eventually be voted on and not used as a bargaining tool to try to move absolutely anything in this House along.

Can the minister comment on the extensive work that has been done to this point? How much has taken place? Why is it important to move this piece of legislation forward now?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was more debate on this bill than there was for the budget implementation act. As I mentioned earlier, we had 105 written briefs, 50 hours of study of the bill through the Senate committee, the oral testimony of 80 witnesses, over 200 amendments tabled through the Senate, an additional 106 amendments tabled through the House committee, and 38 clauses out of almost 70 clauses amended. This really does show the level of debate.

The government was listening. There were reasonable and thoughtful amendments that were proposed by members opposite and supported by the government. Each day, Canadians across the country are having their environment degraded by the release of toxic chemicals. Extreme health hazards, which have very detrimental effects, are also being created in a number of other ways.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is kind of bizarre. We agree with this bill. We have indicated that we will support it. However, we are back at a place where the government cannot manage the proceedings of this place. If it could manage the clock and the calendar better, then we would not have the closure that we have here today. We talked about how this place should work. There is a belief I have and hold dear, which is that the more we can debate and ask questions about a piece of legislation coming through here, the better it is.

How does the minister justify moving closure on a bill that could be improved even more if we had the debate that is prescribed in this place?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say how happy I am to hear that the official opposition will support this bill. This is very important and should be celebrated, because this bill is about protecting the health of Canadians and it is about moving forward, as the member opposite mentioned, thoughtfully but also with a certain speed at which Canadians expect us to move.

This bill was introduced in February 2022. Since that time, there have been extensive study, interventions, amendments proposed, amendments deliberated upon and amendments accepted. Canadians, of course, expect thoughtful debate, which all that I just mentioned demonstrates, I believe, but they also expect this place to act. They expect us to take that study and that debate and implement law that would protect the right to a healthy environment, an environment free from contamination.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask specifically about the amendments at report stage. The David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Environmental Defence, Breast Cancer Action Quebec and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment have all written to the government and urged members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to support these amendments at report stage. They are also urging us to pass this legislation, so I am glad we are moving forward and will have support from parties to pass it.

I am wondering whether the member supports both the amendment I have tabled, to ensure “tailings ponds” is added back into the Environmental Protection Act, and also the amendments on genetically modified organisms. I would love to hear her thoughts.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that this member has had a lot of input on this legislation, which is in a very robust form as a result of the many deliberations and studies, and the amendments proposed, including by the member opposite. For me, as Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, ensuring that people have the right to water and land that is uncontaminated is top of mind. I know this legislation would get us a long way in that direction.

There is nothing more tragic than meeting with a community that has no access to the freshwater body right next to it. Let us take Tataskweyak Cree Nation, for example, where the lake the people have lived beside for generations is now poisoned, for lack of a better word, and in fact is causing a number of health concerns in the community. Children are no longer allowed to swim in the lake. They routinely find dead wildlife in that lake. We can do better, and this legislation would bring us a long way toward that goal.

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

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting to hear the NDP chastising the opposition on how the opposition should function. Actually, it was the government saying that we should be doing something different, and then it was the NDP actually supporting the government. Some things are mixed up. The only party in the House that understands its role right now is the Conservative Party in opposition.

I would just like to bring Canadians back to 2015 and the way the Prime Minister came to power. This minister was part of that government of sunny ways. Do members remember that saying? Everything was going to be different. These guys were going to be open, they were never going to invoke closure and they were going to have a whole different way of doing business in Parliament.

I have a really simple question for the minister. What happened to the sunny ways?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for reminding us of a great year, 2015, when the Liberals were elected and we saw a return to government that was really about the protection of people's environment. It was about making sure everybody has a fair chance to succeed. I am happy to say to the member that I believe this legislation and the process of getting to the place where we are today have been very collaborative.

In fact, the NDP is right. Collaboration is what Canadians expect of us in this place. Of course it is a place for rigorous debate. Of course it is a place for us to air our thoughts about how we strengthen legislation to get to its goal, how we protect Canadians' right to a healthy environment and how we strengthen everybody's chance to have a healthy and fulfilling life and path. This bill and, I believe, this motion for closure actually demonstrate the robustness of that debate. February 2022 is when this legislation was introduced. There have been 105 written briefs, 50 hours of study, 80 witnesses' oral testimonies, over 306 amendments introduced and, indeed, 38 clauses out of 70 amended. This shows the level of debate and collaboration we have been able to achieve in this place.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to highlight the fact, which I really appreciate, that the minister opposite said that the NDP is right. I love to hear that and I would love to hear it some more.

Some of the report stage amendments in the bill are actually looking to require the government to engage in indigenous and public consultations in regard to the introduction of new living organisms, including those genetically engineered, which my colleague was asking about. I do not think the minister had a chance to answer, and I would really like her to respond to that as well.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, as it would happen, most of us are right at least once in a while, and I am always happy to give credit where credit is due.

In terms of indigenous consultation, I want to reflect on Natan Obed's remarks at the Inuit-Crown partnership committee meeting, which I had the incredible, immense honour of attending over the past week in Nain, Labrador. Indeed, President Obed said that no government has done more for indigenous persons than this one has. This reflects the ongoing work and commitment of the Prime Minister, and indeed the government, to place reconciliation at the forefront of what we do, and to ensure that, as we proceed through the House, we are including indigenous voices, consulting indigenous peoples and strengthening law that makes it a requirement for indigenous voices to be consulted and indigenous rights to be respected. The UN declaration that was passed through the House last year is a testimony to that, and I look forward to the action plan that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, will be bringing forward.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the minister has spoken quite a bit about water contamination in indigenous communities, including one in my riding, Grassy Narrows, which the minister knows quite well. The community has been advocating for a mercury treatment centre for decades. There was a lot of relief and excitement, shortly after 2019, when there was an agreement reached to see this treatment centre come to fruition, but we still have not seen action, all these years later. There are now concerns that there are delays because of rising construction costs and the bureaucracy of government.

I would like to give the minister an opportunity to shed some light on the process that has played out in terms of the mercury treatment centre in Grassy Narrows, and to ask her if she can tell us definitively when the government will keep its promise and deliver that treatment centre for the people of Grassy Narrows.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to hear the member opposite get up to advocate for an indigenous community in his riding, and I have spoken with him a number of times about communities in his riding. It is important that we advocate for the most vulnerable communities.

Grassy Narrows is a perfect example of why we need speed in passing this legislation. We cannot have any more situations like the one in Grassy Narrows. We cannot have any more situations where people are being contaminated, often without their knowing. We can look at how, just recently, Imperial Oil is affecting the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Mikisew Cree First Nation. These are tragedies that are preventable, and that is what this legislation would attempt to get at, which is to protect the right to a healthy environment for all Canadians, no matter how remote.

On the subject of the Grassy Narrows treatment centre, I am pleased to report to the member opposite that I met with Chief Turtle and his consulting group last week, and that we do have a path forward to address the ongoing need for the treatment centre.

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

Madam Speaker, just so Canadians understand what we are debating right now, this is a matter of moving forward with legislation that everybody in the House, to my understanding, supports, including the Conservatives. We have had an incredible amount of debate, both here and in the Senate, in regard to this piece of legislation.

To be completely honest, the outrage that we normally get from the Conservatives when it comes to a time allocation motion is extremely lacklustre with respect to this one. It is almost as though they are just coming out and doing what they always do, but they do not even have the energy or the passion for crying foul when it comes to an affront on democracy that we are used to seeing in these circumstances.

Can the minister confirm whether she believes that the amount of debate to this point has been exhaustive and extensive, and that it is now time for the House to come to a vote on the matter?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could repeat the numbers that I have given over the last minutes, but I will just say that I do believe that we have had rigorous debate on this piece of legislation, which, by the way, Canadians are waiting for.

We have heard a number of members raise different environmental disasters. In fact, the bill would attempt to prevent those, and it would recognize the right to a healthy environment. It would strengthen the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances. There have been 38 clauses amended, out of nearly 70 clauses, and this is over a long time period.

Canadians do expect rigorous debate in this place; I know that and I hear that from my constituents.However, they also expect us to act, and that is what today is about. Today is about taking that debate and putting it into motion so Canadians can have confidence that this place is doing the work they expect of it.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's bringing up the idea of it being time to act.

I have a simple question for the minister. Would the bill prevent the dumping of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River so we could have a clean water system at the St. Lawrence?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear the member opposite talk about the many different ways environments can be degraded. As I said, in a nutshell, this act would recognize a right to a healthy environment and strengthen the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances. It would impose a duty on the government to protect that right and to uphold related principles.

I will just say that many of these tragedies we are talking about are decades old, yet people are still living with the environmental impacts to this day. I was speaking with people in Grassy Narrows last week about the ongoing contamination of water and about the life that many of the residents have, in living with mercury poisoning. These are conversations that should alarm us all and compel us to act quickly, and that is what today is about.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, today is a day of contradictions.

I just heard the minister say that the public expects us to engage in debate, while at the same time, we are presented with a gag order.

We support the bill. Our issue is not with the bill. Our issue is with the debate, with our ability to give bills deeper consideration and potentially enhance them.

Once again, what is the rationale underlying this time allocation? Why is the opposition always being silenced? I would like the minister to give us a clearer explanation.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the contrary, this has been a robust debate with opportunities for all members of the House to have their say, whether through debate or through participation on committees. In fact, in the House, for example, 106 amendments were tabled and 38 clauses out of 70 were accepted. It shows the level of debate, that there were over 306 amendments in total between the Senate and the House of Commons and that so many of those amendments were accepted.

This is an example of the House doing its due diligence in studying this legislation. Now it is time to act.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for talking about how there really is no time to waste on this. I wanted to raise my hands to the member for Victoria for wanting to do something more around labelling. Yesterday, the news in British Columbia was talking about breast cancer. One in eight women in this country will go through breast cancer, and it is coming earlier and earlier. Now, early in their 40s, more women are getting breast cancer. For years, the government has allowed corporations to hide which toxic substances are in the products we all use. We need mandatory labelling of hazardous substances.

My question to the minister this. When will the Liberals stop siding with big corporations and start protecting human health?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for talking about the need to have stringent requirements for corporations to not pollute the environment, which not just our generation but also the generations to follow will rely on. This is an important part of that. This legislation would recognize the right to a healthy environment and impose a duty on the government to protect that right and uphold related principles. It would require ministers to develop an implementation framework within two years and to conduct research to support the protection of the right. The legislation is expected to support strong environmental and health standards now and in the future, and there would be a ton of opportunity, through this legislation, to strengthen the rights to a healthy environment and to strengthen the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances that have deleterious health effects for so many Canadians.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government has become well known for making a promise and then delivering something completely different from what it had promised. I think we could see the Prime Minister as the Harry Houdini prime minister, holding up something here, and then, poof, with some sleight of hand, delivering something completely different. I think there are many Canadians who are starting to see behind the veil and understand that those magic tricks are not really so magical after. In listening to the minister today, responding to some of the questions that she had been asked previously, I see that played out very clearly in front of our eyes.

I would like to follow up, in two parts, on some of the things we have already heard about. The government is one that came in saying it would never implement closure, or time allocation. Just so Canadians understand what that means, it means cutting off debate and taking away the voice of a member of Parliament to be able to voice their constituents' concerns. That is what the government is doing, and it has done that dozens, in fact hundreds, of times. I wonder if the minister could actually answer that question.

I also heard a member ask whether the bill would do anything to prevent the dumping of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence, and I did not hear an answer. I heard the minister talk about everything else, which is a very typical Liberal way to approach things: to talk about everything else in order to deflect from the fact that the Liberals are not doing things that Canadians expect of them. Maybe the minister could actually try answering the question. Would the bill prevent raw sewage from being dumped into the St. Lawrence?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will note that the member opposite's party is expected to support this bill. That is an indication of how important this is to all constituents across the country. Canadians, regardless of the party and the member of Parliament who represent them in their riding, want stronger protections for the environment. That is what the government has consistently delivered.

In fact, we are the only government that, for example, has imposed a price on pollution, something that the member opposite's leader now opposes.

Canadians know that the climate is changing. They know we have significant challenges ahead, and this is an important piece of legislation that will protect the rights of Canadians to a healthy environment. I think Canadians expect us to act quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, I take note that this debate on a time allocation motion about an environmental protection act really has nothing to do with the issue the Conservatives keep raising.

The only thing they can talk about, when it has to do with the environment, is Montreal and what it does with its sewage system. If they really wanted to help Montreal, perhaps they would talk about helping Montreal with infrastructure to upgrade the capacity, so it is no longer put in those types of situations.

That seems to be the go-to when it is anything related to the environment. We are talking about a piece of legislation that will significantly overhaul the way we look at environmental protection in our country for generations to come. I am wondering if the minister can talk about, and I know that she already has, and highlight some of the specifics of what this legislation will do to improve the quality of life of Canadians for generations to come.