Debates of May 15th, 2023

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, several years ago, the environment committee made recommendations regarding national standards for clean air and clean water. Why have these two important elements in protecting the environment been ignored as Bill S-9?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know all the details in the legislation to the degree that I could actually give a specific answer to the member. However, when we talk about Canadians having that guarantee of environmental rights, I suspect there are ways to take into consideration a wide variety of environmental issues related to what the member has said.

Again, maybe the member was at the committee or is going into details with which I am just not quite familiar enough.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North spoke about the committee process in his speech.

He might know that our colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, proposed 24 amendments at committee, none of which were supported. The member spoke about the right to a healthy environment. Several of those amendments would have enhanced that right.

Rather than simply considering the right to a healthy environment, one of the amendments would have ensured that the bill would protect the right to a healthy environment. It would have given the opportunity to ensure companies that did not adhere to that right would pay damages for doing so.

What does the hon. member have to say to this?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that when the Green Party moved the amendment, it was not like members voted against it; it was deemed out of scope. When an amendment is out of scope, we cannot expect it to pass.

The member can be encouraged that many amendments were accepted at the Senate and House of Commons levels, and they were not just government amendments. The government was open to amendments, but there is an obligation when a member introduces an amendment that it be within the scope of the legislation. From what I understand, the chairs at that time did not think it was within the proper scope of the legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear some more details, specifically about whether this bill does anything to guarantee a healthy environment.

How does the member explain the fact that this bill is primarily technical, despite the seriousness of the climate crisis? It is really too bad that the bill's sponsor did not have the guts to consider what might happen after Bill S-5 passes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would be inclined to disagree with the member. If we look at the legislation, it would establish a framework that could ultimately be complemented by regulations, which could address some of the concerns she may express during the third reading of Bill S-5.

I believe it enshrines the principles of Canadians to have a right to a healthy environment, and that is a strong and positive step forward.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was part of the committee that studied this. The environment committee spent hours looking at this technical legislation.

The hon. member has zeroed in on one of the cruxes of the legislation, which is the right to a healthy environment. Something we discussed at length was toxicity and how to limit that on animals that could then become part of the food chain. There are also animals being tested in laboratories. We need to get away from the toxicity that harms animal health and therefore our health.

Could the hon. member talk about why it is important to have a healthy environment?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one cannot underestimate the importance of Canada in contributing to the world food chain in the future. That is why it is so critically important that we get this issue right. I appreciate the comments. I suspect it will be an area we will talk a great deal about into the future.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the environment is on all our minds these days as we see images of more than 100 wildfires raging in my home province of Alberta. Thousands of people have had to flee their homes. The provincial government has declared a state of emergency.

As I mentioned in my S.O. 31 last week, such situations as these remind us that the circumstances people endure may be uncontrollable, but we can definitely control our response to them. Canadians understand the need to work together. I am thankful to those across the country who have travelled to Alberta to assist the firefighting efforts.

One of the biggest strengths of our nation is the willingness of Canadians to come together in a crisis. We support each other because that is the Canadian way of doing things. On behalf of everyone in Alberta, I want to thank those from other provinces and territories for standing up to fight the wildfires.

With the environment on our minds, we turn to consider an environmental bill, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. What is the big rush with this bill? Suddenly, the government is in a hurry to pass this legislation; it has come to the point where the government has to limit debate. I find this somewhat amusing. It introduced pretty much the same bill during the last Parliament, but that one failed to pass because the Prime Minister thought an early election was more important.

Protecting the environment is something Liberals talk about a lot. We have heard them talking about setting targets for carbon emissions. We do not hear them talk about how the government has never met a target that it set for itself. Talk is easy. Doing something seems to be more difficult.

Bill S-5 is the first major overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act since the 1990s. Much has changed since then in our understanding of the environment and climate change. The bill is long overdue; however, given the lack of priority the Liberals have given this issue in recent years, I am surprised they feel it is important to limit debate.

When one looks at the legislation, one cannot help but be disappointed. The bill is not really about environmental protection; it is about updating the rules. There is no doubt that many environmental rules need to be updated. Those on toxic substances come to mind. So much can change in 20 years, but there is nothing new here besides vague and undefined promises.

Many pieces of legislation that have come before this House highlight the stark differences in the visions of Canada put forward by the Liberals and the Conservatives. Conservatives put people first, seeking to make the lives of ordinary Canadians better through sensible financial policies. We understand that the government is not supposed to magically create jobs; rather, it should create an environment where the private sector sees opportunities to create jobs.

This bill recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment. It would require the Government of Canada to protect this right, but it would leave it up to the minister to develop an implementation framework and tell us how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of CEPA.

Several years ago, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made recommendations regarding national standards for clean air and clean water. I would have expected them to be included in this legislation. Maybe the minister will get around to including them in the implementation framework, but it would have been nice to have them included so that we could see what the government is planning and make some suggestions for improvement, if needed, in the House.

With all due respect to the minister, I am curious as to what is considered a “healthy environment”. In many ways, the concept goes far beyond the scope of this legislation. Does it include the air we breathe? It most certainly does. What about access to clean drinking water? That goes without saying, although I suppose some communities under drinking water advisories would warn us that such a right has not been extended to all Canadians. Is a healthy environment access to affordable, healthy food? If so, where are the provisions to deal with the inflation the government has created? Yes, the bill would deal with toxic chemicals and with obvious environmental hazards, but there is so much more that needs to be done. I will admit to being a little concerned as to what the minister thinks a healthy environment is, and I hope that, when the definition finally comes, it will be science-based and not sprung out of ideological dogma.

As I have mentioned here before, the current government has a habit of making pronouncements highlighting its environmental plans, then not following through. I hope that, this time, its members really mean what they say. Certainly, the legislation is long overdue. We know so much more about the environment, climate change and the need for action than we did 20 years ago.

It is certainly time to modernize Canada's chemicals management plan. I would suspect that, given rapid advances in industry, we may want to take another look at the plan in a few years. As a nation, we need to be proactive, making sure the environment is properly protected rather than waiting for an industrial accident that could cause harm to the environment and to the Canadian people. The risk-based approach to chemicals management proposed in Bill S-5 makes sense to me.

Last week, I spoke in this chamber regarding Bill S-6, which is an attempt to reduce the mountain of governmental red tape that Canadians face. It seems that, everywhere we turn, there are more regulations. It is almost as if they were breeding.

It is important to have regulations regarding the environment. We need to ensure that our air is fresh and our water pure, not just for today, but for future generations. We hold the environment in trust for our children and grandchildren. Sometimes, though, regulations are unnecessary; they add to the mountain of red tape without achieving what they are supposed to achieve. This is why I am please that Bill S-5 sets out to remove unnecessary red tape from our environmental regulations.

We need protections, but they should be necessary ones. Given the limited scope of the bill, I would not be surprised to see more environmental regulations from the government. Chemicals management and toxic substances are not the only areas of environmental protection that are concerning Canadians.

In this House, we are all committed to protecting our environment, although we sometimes differ as to what the best approach would be. Canada remains the envy of the world for our clean water and clean air, as well as the natural beauty of our country. Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to ensure that future generations can enjoy the same healthy environment that we have today. If we can leave our planet and its environment healthier than it was when our parents passed it on to us, then that will be a fitting legacy.

Revisions to our environmental protection laws are long overdue. Perhaps the government has not acted quickly enough, but it is acting. Perhaps the provisions of the bill do not go as far as some would have liked, but the bill is a beginning. It is not the all-encompassing legislation that some would have hoped for. It is a modest beginning that addresses a need. At least it is a start.

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

Madam Speaker, one cannot help but ask a question of a Conservative when they stand up and talk about the environment. I am glad that the Conservatives are going to be supporting this particular piece of legislation, but there are many within the Conservative Party who are challenged when it comes to recognizing such things as climate change. There are some who are finding it challenging to review and look at what they told their constituents or voters back in the last federal election, when they said that they were in favour of a price on pollution.

Given his current leader's position on the issue, could the member indicate what he would say to his constituents, having told them in the last election that he supports a price on pollution?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thought the hon. member did not want us to talk about the environment from this side. That is my first impression of his question. On the other hand, I thought we were talking about clean air, clean water, toxic substances and so forth; I also thought I was talking about red tape and regulations. Canadians need fewer regulations, less taxation, less red tape and more action. That makes sense; on this side of the House, that is what I believe we need to do in order to move forward with a very balanced and good plan to protect the environment.

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

Madam Speaker, I am really confused as to what my colleague wants here. He talks about how important it is to have a clean and healthy environment, as well as how Canadians expect and want that. However, he says we need fewer regulations for that clean environment. How do the Conservatives expect us to maintain a clean and healthy environment without regulations in some form that will keep companies like Imperial Oil in check when they spill toxins into rivers? How are we supposed to do that without regulations to make sure that our children and our children's children will have a clean and healthy environment here in Canada?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a different way of looking at things and dealing with things. We are very much more practical on this side of the House. This is a style of management that different parties have. We need less regulation. We have too many regulations, and we need to look at that; we need less ideology in terms of looking at everything, especially the environment.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to get some things straightened out. The member talked about there being no definition of clean air or clean water in this legislation; it is sort of open to interpretation. Running with the track record of the government for the last eight years, the government has actually made more red tape and made things more confusing to anybody who really wanted to do something better for the environment. This is coming from a government that actually charged hospital administrators a carbon tax to heat their own hospitals during a pandemic. I wonder if the member across the way can comment on why he is looking for more clarification on this bill.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, there are no definitions in the bill; they are leaving it up to the minister. It is as though the government hopes that, within the framework, the minister is going to put together the proper definitions of clean water and clean air, as well as what other environmental protections look like.

It seems that, so far, the government has only one gear, and that is carbon tax. It taxes Canadians more and hopes to change their behaviour. This is not working. This is just really adding levies on the shoulders of Canadians, taking money away from Canadian families at a time of inflation. By the way, the carbon tax is also contributing to inflation. We need to reduce it rather than adding fuel to the fire, as the government is doing.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, after having had the pleasure of working on it for over 15 meetings on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is Canada’s most important environmental law. CEPA is focused on preventing pollution, managing toxic substances, and protecting the environment and human health. The powers created by CEPA are firmly recognized as a valid exercise of the federal government’s criminal law power. It not only protects us from harmful chemicals, but is also the instrument that was utilized to ban certain single-use plastic items.

CEPA also has a key function in the management of greenhouse gases. The regulation-making authority under CEPA allows the federal government to control the fuel efficiency standards for light duty vehicles and the methane emissions from oil and gas. It will also be the tool used for the forthcoming zero-emissions vehicle mandate, the clean electricity standard and, perhaps, the cap on emissions from oil and gas.

Members can see why this is an important law, but it has not been updated for almost 24 years. The Harper government did not bother to review or update it over the course of the Conservatives' mandate, but it is obvious that much has changed over this period, and our knowledge of chemicals and the environment had greatly progressed. This much was affirmed through the extensive study that was done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development from 2016 to 2017. Many of the recommendations in this report were incorporated into legislation, which was first tabled before the 2021 election and now again in Bill S-5.

I want to thank the members of that committee, including my former colleague, Will Amos, who did important work to get us where we are. I also want to thank the many individuals who have worked on this over the years, including organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, and Canada’s own UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, Dr. David Boyd. It is quite a marvel that both industry and environmental NGOs agreed on the overall framework of this bill and signed a letter to that effect before it was tabled last year.

Bill S-5 is an extremely technical bill, and so I will not get into all of the intricacies of it, but I do want to mention a few highlights.

Bill S-5 would make several major advancements, including, for the first time ever, recognizing a right to a healthy environment in Canadian law. Many of my own constituents, including Lisa Brasso, have been advocating for this right for some time through the Blue Dot campaign, where I was an early signatory during the 2019 election campaign. Since Bill S-5 was tabled, we strengthened this right at committee such that the right will no longer need to balanced against other factors, and it now incorporates the principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity.

Through an amendment I introduced at committee, the act will now expand this right to include a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. This will bring Canada into alignment with internationally accepted definitions, which we voted for at the UN in July of last year. In this respect, “clean” refers to the fight against pollution; “healthy” refers to ecological balance; and “sustainable” refers to the nexus between the environment and development. This is critical in the act, which is most responsible for advancing sustainable development, so that we practice domestically what we preach internationally.

Bill S-5 would also take major steps forward in advancing transparency and accountability so Canadians can have confidence in how chemicals are being managed. It would refocus departments on planning for assessing substances of highest risk first; provide dedicated timelines to reassess these priorities; provide an avenue for the public to request that a minister assess a substance when new data about a substance becomes available, which would require a response in 90 days; require that reasons be given if the final risk assessments of chemicals exceeds two years; require annual progress reporting and timeline reporting; and strengthen provisions around confidential business information.

Bill S-5, for the first time, would assess the potential impacts of chemical substances on vulnerable populations and the cumulative effects that toxic substances may pose to vulnerable populations. It would ensure that we assess the relative vulnerability that individuals, such as pregnant mothers and children, may have to certain chemicals as well as populations that may be more persistently exposed to a substance.

This will dovetail nicely with the legislation we have also recently passed through this chamber, which will require a national strategy on environmental racism and environmental justice. I want to thank my former seatmate, Lenore Zann, for tabling this, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for reintroducing it after the last election. It is important that we make progress on this because environmental racism is not just a historical blight. We continue to see this today, with the most recent example of the Kearl project tailings leaks and their cumulative impacts on first nations downstream.

That is why I invited Imperial Oil and the Alberta Energy Regulator to appear at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to answer for what happened and why they kept the affected communities in the dark. Big oil and what affected communities widely pan as an industry captured regulator, or in the case of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, a “complete joke”, are convinced that they can pull the rug over Canadians' eyes and people will move on. However, the federal government is stepping in to investigate the company and has gathered all implicated parties to figure out long-term solutions to the entire monitoring and notification system.

It also bears mentioning the related amendment the NDP has proposed. The NDP is trying to make the case that we need to specifically list tailings ponds to have the ability to get information on them under section 46, the information-gathering provisions of CEPA, but this flies in the face of the fact that we already have this ability through powers rooted in subsections (c), (e), (f), (h), (i), (k), (l), and a new proposed subsection we added in Bill S-5 to cover activities that may contribute to pollution.

There is a related agreement with Alberta on oil sands monitoring that is rooted in these powers, but the problem in this case is that Alberta inexplicably violated its duty to notify the federal government. I do ask my NDP colleagues to read the full legislation first, to understand how it addresses information on tailings, rather than simply pressing Ctrl+F and typing “tailings” before providing misleading amendments that there is such a gap. To do otherwise, I believe, is an insult to Canadians' intelligence, and it takes time out from other measures that may actually make the legislation better.

I want to take a few minutes to discuss how Bill S-5 could have been improved. For example, I am disappointed that the legislation will only require the that the right to a healthy environment be considered in the administration of the act, rather than require the protection of it. While I have confidence in our minister to bring in a robust system to protect this new right, there is a risk that future governments and future ministers may roll this back.

Second, the committee also narrowly rejected an amendment I proposed that would have required the minister to take measures to protect the right to a healthy environment where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as part of the implementation framework. I think this is a major missed opportunity. Canada is one of the few developed nations that does not have mandatory ambient air quality standards. The federal government’s own 2016 assessment showed that poor air quality costs Canada at least $120 billion and 15,000 deaths per year, making this an obvious action for us to take to save lives and avoid major health costs. I was encouraged that the minister committed that the implementation framework will clarify how the right to a healthy environment lens will apply to the clean air agenda, but this could have been made explicit in the legislation.

Women in Science

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the students at our Canadian post-secondary institutions on their convocations, including those at Dalhousie in Halifax.

In particular, I want to recognize my daughter, Monica, who is receiving her doctorate in philosophy, a Ph.D., in chemical engineering, specializing in fire dynamics. As a member of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I know the importance of research and having strong women in science.

Monica is the mother of two young children, aged two and a half years and two months. She is a skilled soccer player, a coach and a mentor to many. She earned her doctorate by working hard for many years, as well as continuing her lab research through COVID and while pregnant. I am so proud of her accomplishments. Monica's story is inspiring, and I proudly share it to encourage all girls to strive to achieve their dreams.

I want every girl out there to keep her dreams alive and trust and believe in herself. We support our girls.

Congratulations, Monica. We love you.

Food Allergy Awareness Month

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May is Food Allergy Awareness Month.

Food allergy is a medical condition directly affecting more than three million Canadians, including 600,000 kids. Living with food allergies is not a choice. It is not without significant challenges. This is a chronic medical condition defined by its unpredictability, life-threatening potential and absence of a cure.

It is not without hope. Thanks to organizations such as Food Allergy Canada, great strides have been made to inform the public, 50% of whom will be touched by a food allergy in some way, and improve the life for families directly impacted. I want to acknowledge the parents, grandparents, caregivers, coaches, educators and non-profit organizations for their continued advocacy and support to improve the quality of life for those living with food allergies.

Indian Arrival Day

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Indian Arrival Day is celebrated on various days in May in many countries, including Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Grenada, Fiji, Mauritius, Suriname, and many other countries commemorating the arrival of people from the Indian subcontinent to their respective nations as indentured labourers brought by European colonial past authorities.

Last week, an international conference on indentureship was organized in Fiji by Global Girmit Institute. Canadians who have come to our wonderful land from all of these countries continue to mark this day. They have worked hard to preserve their history, their culture and their heritage, which also benefits future generations of Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the contributions of these Canadians to the socio-economic development of our country and for strengthening our rich, multicultural fabric.

Jean‑Pierre Gélinas

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jean-Pierre Gélinas of Louiseville, who recently received the Gaétan Blais award.

This committed volunteer is involved with a whole slew of organizations, including the Louiseville Optimist Club, Noël du Pauvre, Knights of Columbus, the Centre d'action bénévole de la MRC de Maskinongé, minor baseball, the Louiseville buckwheat pancake festival, the Maison du commis-voyageur, the Comité ZIP du lac Saint‑Pierre, the Organisme de bassins versants des rivières du Loup et des Yamachiche, the Office municipal d'habitation de Louiseville, and many other causes. He is also the one who created volunteer appreciation night in the first place.

Clearly, Mr. Gélinas knows what we are talking about when we say that volunteer work changes the world. I thank him for giving so generously of his time. I offer him my sincere congratulations on his strong sense of commitment. It is caring people like him who make the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé such a great place to live.

20th Anniversary of Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 20th annivesary of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, which I have the honour of co-chairing with Senator Amina Gerba.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who, over the years, helped our association be active and present both here in Canada and on the international stage, including the association's founders, the late MP Mauril Bélanger and retired senator Raynell Andreychuk.

The association's 20 years have been filled with meetings with African delegations visiting Canada, bilateral visits to 34 African countries and to the pan-African Parliament, 31 reports to the House and Senate, and many intercultural learning activities.

I invite all members to come celebrate 20 years of Canada-Africa and Africa Day this coming Thursday here on the Hill with the African community here in Canada.

Retirement Congratulations

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the important work that we do as members of Parliament is only made possible with the support of dedicated staff. Today, it is an honour for me to pay tribute to Sonja Hansen ahead of her upcoming retirement.

Starting her career on the Hill in 1979, she has remained a constant in these halls, outlasting MPs, leaders, prime ministers and even some political parties. Since I was first elected, I have been fortunate to benefit from her experience and expertise. Her work ethic, commitment to excellence, and the speed and care with which she tackles any task are only outmatched by her thoughtfulness and sense of humour.

While she will be greatly missed, I wish her a happy and healthy retirement. I hope that all members in this place will join me in thanking Sonja Hansen for her decades of service and dedication to Parliament and all Canadians.

Portuguese Canadians

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 13, 1953, 70 years ago, the first boatload of Portuguese migrants reached Pier 21 in Halifax. This marked the beginning of what would become large-scale immigration from Portugal to Canada.

ln the ensuing years and decades, tens of thousands of Portuguese came to escape poverty, a dictatorship and the colonial wars they did not want to participate in. By this year, Portuguese Canadians are approximately 500,000 strong. There are Portuguese communities right across Canada and over 125 Portuguese social clubs. Their volunteers work tirelessly to promote the Portuguese language, culture and traditions.

Portuguese Canadians are leaders in all sectors of our economic, political and social life. The Portuguese Canadian Walk of Fame highlights Portuguese Canadian leaders for outstanding achievements. This past weekend, the following four were added: Jack Oliveira, Jose Carlos Teixeira, Ema Dantas and Antonio De Sousa.

They and all Portuguese leaders serve not only as an inspiration to the Portuguese community, but to all Canadians. Parabéns to the community. Here is to 70 more successful years.

Dave Kerwin

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on February 6 of this year, Newmarket lost a true community builder. Dave Kerwin was deeply focused on his community. He led a life of giving back to the place he called home, punctuated by his 39 years on Newmarket council.

His passion for the arts, support for the renovations to the old town hall and his support of Visual & Performing Arts Newmarket, are but a few of his remarkable contributions. Dave's smile and his genuine concern for the people who came into his life will be memories to cherish. Our town has benefited from his passion and commitment to everything that was Newmarket.

While we will miss this remarkable man, we do not need to go far in our community to find memories of his contributions to the people and the town we love to call home. His legacy of community builder, friend and loving family man will live on in the history of Newmarket.