Debates of May 29th, 2023

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-5, strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

Due to the vital work of parliamentarians, Bill S-5 has progressed steadily and it is now a stronger bill because of the parliamentary process and remarkable collaboration among partners, stakeholders and the public.

The government supports this bill and urges members in both chambers to pass it. The bill has reached a critical juncture. We must now turn our attention to ensuring the bill, as amended, receives royal assent without delay so that the government can get on with the very important work of implementing it in co-operation with partners, stakeholders and the public.

With this goal in mind, we wish to address some concerns raised during debates over the last couple of weeks. In particular, I refer to comments regarding the scope of information-gathering powers under CEPA, as well as the framework for assessing new living organisms under part 6 of the act.

The hon. member for Victoria spoke at length about tailings ponds and moved an amendment at report stage to restore amendments adopted in the other place that added explicit references to hydraulic fracturing and tailings ponds to the non-exhaustive list of information that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change can compel.

The ENVI committee reversed this amendment, removing the explicit references to hydraulic fracturing and tailings ponds, and the government was supportive. I will briefly explain the rationale behind the government's initial position on that change and then explain why the government ultimately decided to support the hon. member for Victoria's motion to reinstate the language regarding hydraulic fracturing and tailings ponds.

Section 46 of CEPA, the provision in question, gives the minister broad authority to compel others to provide information about substances and activities for various purposes, such as conducting research, creating an inventory of data, issuing guidelines, and assessing and reporting on the state of the environment. This is a very broad information-gathering authority and it provides the basis for the department's national pollutant release inventory, NPRI.

The NPRI tracks over 320 pollutants from over 7,000 facilities across Canada, specifically in relation to tailings and waste rock. Facilities must report the quantity and concentration of NPRI substances disposed of in tailings or waste rock management areas on site, or sent to another facility for disposal in such areas.

Section 46 is already being used to compel persons to report information regarding the use of tailings ponds, and Environment and Climate Change Canada then publicly reports this information through the NPRI.

With respect to hydraulic fracturing, the NPRI also captures underground releases from certain in situ oil sands operations and the department provides guidance to facilities on how to report substances that are injected underground.

As introduced, Bill S-5 proposed to broaden the information-gathering power in section 46 by adding a new paragraph directed at activities that may contribute to pollution. Without question, such activities would include hydraulic fracturing and the use of tailings ponds, so adding additional explicit references to tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing under section 46 of CEPA was not necessary for the minister to compel, collect and report information on these activities. I realize this is really getting in the weeds.

That said, recent events in Alberta underscore the importance of understanding the risks to the environment and human health from tailings ponds. Although adding specific references to hydraulic fracturing and tailings ponds to the bill would not, in and of itself, address the potential environmental and health risks associated with these activities, this change would make explicit that the government has the authority to compel, and does collect and report information related to tailings ponds. That is why this government supported the hon. member for Victoria's motion.

What else is this government doing to effectively reduce these risks?

Since the federal government was made aware of the seepage incident at the Kearl oil sands mine, we have been working to get to the bottom of it, support indigenous communities and collaborate on improving the reporting system for these kinds of incidents. We hear loud and clear the concerns being expressed by indigenous communities regarding the management of the tailings and the potential impacts on the local environment and communities. We have been in continuous contact with these folks.

In April, the minister sent letters to indigenous leaders about a new notification and monitoring working group, which would include the federal and provincial governments, indigenous communities and the Government of Northwest Territories, which is downstream. Northern indigenous communities will also be kept well informed and engaged. We are proposing a governance structure that includes co-chairs, with representation from the federal and provincial governments and indigenous communities. From the federal perspective, an enhanced communication protocol must be developed to improve notification at all steps in the notification process in cases of future environmental emergencies.

Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officials have also been very active on the ground. Just the other week, the department's enforcement branch opened up an investigation into a suspected contravention of subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act at Imperial Oil Limited's Kearl oil sands site. Subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish or in any place where the deleterious substance may enter such water.

Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers and environmental emergencies officers have carried out inspections at the site since they became aware of the incident on February 7, 2023. In addition to the investigation, officers will continue to monitor the mitigation measures taken by Imperial Oil Limited to prevent impacts to fish-bearing water, as required by the Fisheries Act direction issued by Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement on March 10, 2023.

This brings me to a very important point: Tailings ponds and, indeed, many other activities that pose risks to environmental or human health are not necessarily issues that can be exclusively addressed under CEPA. While CEPA is a large act that deals with many topics, it is not always the most appropriate act for addressing every issue or risk. In certain cases, it would be more efficient and effective to manage risks under another federal act that is best placed or specifically tailored for addressing those risks. It is for this reason that Bill S-5 proposes amendments that provide the flexibility to meet risk-management obligations under CEPA using other federal acts, including those for which another minister is responsible, like the Fisheries Act.

I wish to address concerns expressed by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding the amendments to part 6 of the act and clarify a couple of things regarding the new proposed approach to public participation under this part.

Part 6 of the act deals with products of biotechnology, also known as living organisms, and provides for a robust framework for the assessment and management of risks associated with new living organisms. As introduced, Bill S-5 did not propose any amendments to this framework. However, thanks to the important contributions of stakeholders such as Nature Canada and others throughout the parliamentary process, amendments were adopted to part 6 that, if passed, would require that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and my colleague the Minister of Health consult with interested persons when assessing new living organisms that are vertebrate animals, such as AquaBounty and AquAdvantage salmon, as well as other organisms that may be prescribed by regulation.

During the report stage debates, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested that the term “interested persons” had a specific meaning, namely that it would preclude the participation of indigenous peoples, scientists and the public in the assessment process. That is not at all the case. Quite to the contrary, this amendment is intentionally broad to ensure that everyone can participate. In fact, “interested persons” is the exact same language in the provision of this bill that requires the Minister of Health and I to consult on the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment.

Coming back to the amendments to part 6 adopted by the ENVI committee, there is also a requirement to publish a notice of consultation before undertaking the consultations themselves. This notice would be publicly accessible and would serve the purpose of allowing interested persons, including indigenous peoples, scientists and members of the public, to identify themselves so they can participate accordingly. This requirement to publish a notice of consultation was absent from the proposal moved by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. For that and other reasons, the government could not support it.

Lastly, on the topic of part 6, it is important to note that much of the act is implemented through regulations, specifically the new substances notification regulations for organisms, or NSNRO, a particular aspect of the regulations. These regulations set out the details of how new living organisms are assessed and managed.

In October of last year, the government published a discussion paper and launched consultations on the modernization of these regulations. The discussion paper highlighted themes of increasing openness and transparency, and responding to advances in science and technology. These are key components of this regulatory review exercise, and the new statutory requirement to consult under CEPA will be an important complement to this work.

I encourage stakeholders interested in the framework for assessing new living organisms under part 6 of CEPA to participate in the regulatory review process for the new substances notification regulations. After considering comments received, the government will make recommendations for amending the regulations and will invite additional feedback.

I would like to reiterate that the government appreciates the work of the members of the Senate ENEV and House ENVI committees to strengthen this bill and ensure that it will make a difference in the lives of Canadians. The government urges our colleagues in the other place to accept the amendments made by the elected officials in this chamber and send this bill to receive royal assent without delay. Only then can the government get to work putting these important changes into practice.

Once this bill comes into force, we will begin a range of regulatory and implementation initiatives. The two main initiatives will involve developing both the implementation framework for a right to a healthy environment and the plan of chemicals management priorities.

Within two years of coming into force, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will develop an implementation framework with the Minister of Health to set out how the right to a healthy environment will be considered in the administration of CEPA. There will be opportunities for the public to participate in the development of the implementation framework, and progress on the framework's implementation will be documented annually in the CEPA annual report. We also need to develop and implement the plan of chemicals management priorities, also within two years of royal assent. Stakeholders and partners will be consulted as part of the plan's development.

Animal testing was a major theme throughout the parliamentary process. The government remains committed to taking steps toward replacing and reducing reliance on vertebrate animal testing. The government will continue to work with industry, academia and our international partners to develop and evaluate non-animal methods. Through Bill S-5, the plan of chemicals management priorities will include a strategy to promote the development and use of methods not involving the use of vertebrate animals.

Beyond these two key implementation deliverables, additional regulatory and implementation activities will be needed to operationalize remaining amendments, which will modernize Canada's approach to chemicals management. For example, regulations will need to be developed to define the properties and characteristics of the new subset of toxic substances that pose the highest risk. There will be opportunities for stakeholder input throughout the regulatory process.

The government will also work on developing policies and guidance for publishing and maintaining the watch-list and for facilitating a more open and transparent confidential business information regime. Similarly, policies and guidance will be developed to flesh out the process for the public to request the assessment of a substance. Finally, the government will continue to work on developing a broad labelling and supply chain transparency strategy, expected to be published later this year.

In closing, I urge all members of this House and the other place to vote for strengthened environmental protection and for a healthier Canada for all Canadians by supporting Bill S-5.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be participating in today's debate. I am also very pleased to see my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, again. I have a lot of respect and esteem for him. I will give him a moment to put his earpiece on properly so that he can hear the interpreters. Incidentally, I would like to thank them for doing such a great job.

Before raising a substantive issue, I would like to point out that, in my opinion, the government has made a mistake. It is a logistical error, but it is annoying. We are here in the House to debate a bill on the environment, Bill S-5, on which the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked very hard. At the same time, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is meeting to debate another issue. To my knowledge, this is the first time that an issue is being debated in the House and in committee by the same MPs. I think that this is an oversight on the part of the government House leader. I encourage him to be more careful in future.

My question for the hon. member is as follows. On January 30, in committee, the member and his party voted in favour of a motion moved by the Conservative member for Calgary Centre. The motion sought to withdraw an amendment that had been proposed by Senator McCallum. When the NDP presented its amendment here in the House two weeks ago, however, the Liberal Party voted in favour of it. That is the exact opposite of what it did in committee. Why take both sides on the same issue?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his hard work and participation on Bill S-5 at the committee stage. We spent over 50 hours between the Senate and the ENVI committee studying this bill, so we did a thorough job. I compliment the hon. member on his contributions, which were frequent and very positive. For the most part we agreed.

The amendment to which he refers I spoke about extensively in my speech. The amendment related to tailings ponds and fracking was, I think, a happenstance of circumstances. We know there was an oil spill and seepage in northern Alberta that has caused heartache, worry and fear among indigenous communities. I think we as a committee wanted to highlight that and give it special attention. At the end of the day, those provisions were already covered under CEPA, but the committee, with that amendment, felt the need for emphasis. That is why we, in the end, went with that position.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the environment, there is often a huge difference between what should be done and what ends up being done. Bill S-5 is sort of symbolic that way, meaning that we are doing a little when we should be doing a lot more.

The Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the NDP, which are other parties but can still contribute, wanted to add teeth to the bill so that it would have some clout and could make bigger and more beneficial changes to help the planet.

However, it appears that the Liberals' goal was to limit the scope of the bill, which I find disappointing. In its current position, the Liberal government knows full well that it can always count on the Conservatives' support when it wants to limit the environmental scope of certain bills. It also knows that, even when it is being extremely pro-oil, it can count on the NDP's support when it needs its budget to be adopted, along with its credits for oil companies.

Does the parliamentary secretary not realize that his government always sides with the oil companies? It is sad, because, in the end, the entire planet will have to pay the price.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member heard, but one of our Conservative colleagues just said that we had gone too far. That is an interesting contrast to his statement.

For the first time, we are introducing a right to a healthy environment. We are going to take our time. We are going to take the next 24 months to define that right and to define how it will be implemented. It will have teeth. It will help us better the environment for our kids, our grandkids and indigenous peoples.

In closing, I would add that the Bloc will be supporting the bill. We are very happy to hear that, because his colleague was very active and very collaborative, and made very good suggestions on improving the bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, rarely have I been so frequently referenced by a parliamentary secretary while bringing forward a bill, being Bill S-5, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a bill with which I have decades of familiarity through the strange happenstance that I was in the Minister of Environment's office and worked on it before first reading in 1988. I will let that sink in for a minute.

I grieve the reality that this bill is weaker than what we brought forward in 1988, but let me turn quickly to the points that the parliamentary secretary made. I never asserted that the words “interested parties” would preclude the involvement of indigenous people or scientists. The amendment that I attempted to bring forward at report stage was to ensure that the opportunity to provide for relevant indigenous knowledge and scientific information was protected.

I will put it to the hon. parliamentary secretary that I did not claim that “interested parties” precluded indigenous peoples and scientific knowledge, but that it does not specifically include them, and “interested parties” in the jurisprudence usually means a party, such as a chemical company, that has a direct interest.

I would also like to put this to the hon. parliamentary secretary. When he says that part 6 of the act, which was essentially untouched over the last 20 years, dealing with genetically modified living organisms, in his words, has a “robust framework”, could he explain how it is that Canada is the only country in the world to have approved genetically modified animals for human consumption?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I reference the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands often, it is an indication of the deep respect that I have for her and the long time that I have known her as one of the foremost environmental activists in our country.

We are going to be consulting broadly on part 6, because we want to implement regulations that will have teeth and that will address some of the concerns about genetically modified organisms. In my speech, I referenced genetically modified salmon. This was raised at committee repeatedly. If a genetically modified organism escapes into the wild, it could literally pollute the gene pool of living organisms there.

With respect to indigenous people, I want to thank Senator McCallum, who happens to be from Manitoba, my home province. She really added so many important provisions that recognize the important role indigenous people play in our country in protecting the environment. UNDRIP is referenced; traditional knowledge is referenced, and those kinds of provisions are a great improvement in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend, for many years, has been a very strong advocate on the environmental file, in particular with regard to waterways. I know he was in charge of a press conference we just recently had in the city of Winnipeg, dealing with the Canada water agency, and I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts on how important that is to our country and to our city.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, CEPA and the Fisheries Act help protect our water, but the federal government needs to show more leadership on water, and I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who repeatedly called for an independent departmental agency that would report directly to the minister, which we now call the Canada water agency. It would help to protect and manage our waterways, working with provinces, territories, indigenous governments and communities, and other stakeholders for time immemorial.

Canada is home to 20% of the world's fresh water, and we have to protect it.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate.

As members know, since October, I have had the privilege of being the official opposition's shadow minister for climate change and environment. I am honoured by the confidence placed in me by the hon. member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition and our future prime minister. Of course, I intend to take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, this is essentially the first bill I have been able to devote 100% of my time to. I participated in almost every stage of the bill.

Climate change is real. Humans have an impact on the creation of climate change, which is why humans must find solutions. That is why we offered our full support to the committee, along with the government and the other political parties, to make sure that the bill can be passed, balanced with the necessary political debate. Let me explain.

This bill seeks to update an act that was adopted nearly 24 years ago, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

It is totally normal and useful to review a bill that was tabled almost a quarter of a century ago, so this what we did in a committee of the House. The Senate also did that job of adapting what was tabled in 1999 to the reality of 2023 and more.

That is why we wanted to strike the appropriate balance between protecting the environment and the future of this planet and taking the Canadian economy and Canadians' lives into account. That is what this bill tries to do.

The bill has received support from environmental groups and the industry, but not unqualified support, not blind support. These two groups often disagree on the common good, but they did agree on one thing, which is that it was time to move forward.

I recall that the bill was tabled in the Senate, and all the people who are interested in environmental issues will say it is time to move forward and act. For sure, it is time to act, but unfortunately the bill, though it may be passed today or tomorrow, will be a year to two too late. This is because this piece of legislation was tabled in the old Parliament, and it was before the Prime Minister decided almost two years ago to call the shots and call an election during the fourth wave of the COVID pandemic. It was an election that cost more than $600 million of taxpayer money for almost exactly the same result we had. This was only because the Prime Minister wanted to move by himself, but for that we lost a full year of parliamentary work on that piece of legislation.

The bill as it stands is essentially the same as the earlier version that was introduced during the previous Parliament. This time, the government has decided, and that is its right, to introduce it in the upper chamber. It was debated in the Senate as Bill S-5. It was then sent to the House of Commons to be debated here. That is interesting, and this is where we have some concerns. I will come back to that.

Essentially, at the heart of the matter, as I said, this bill is a revision of the environmental laws that we have had for almost a quarter of a century. However, there are also new elements. First, we recognize the right of citizens to live in a healthy environment. That is a principle that we Conservatives support. This is obvious. However, it must be precisely defined.

The bill provides for two years of work to be able to define the legal framework, since, as we know all too well in our business, the devil is in the details. We therefore have to be sure that we have a really good law and proper regulations. The profile of populations said to be vulnerable must also defined. When there is mining or natural resource development, this may have a direct impact on people’s lives, just as the construction of a plant or new infrastructure can have a direct impact on a population. This is what we define as vulnerable populations and we need to make sure that all this goes well.

There was an agreement to move forward. That is what we did.

In fact, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, there have been more than 50 hours of committee work to be sure that we could directly address many aspects. Noting is perfect in this world, but we still worked well together, hand in hand. In addition, it always made me smile to see that we were finally getting along more often than we may have thought with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. As a resident of Quebec, I have known him for many years, as well as his very active role in defending the environment. Let us remember that 30 years and two weeks ago, he founded the group Équiterre with a few friends. As we know, Équiterre is now suing him for damaging the Canadian environment. Bill S-5 is off to a good start. We have clear objectives and we support them.

However, now in our parliamentary work, something surprising, if not disappointing, has happened. That is what we call a flip flop. A party voted for something during parliamentary committee work and, when it came to the House, changed its mind and voted against it. They have that right. We do not dispute that right. It is just that we were a bit surprised and shocked, particularly since the flip flop was not related to a misplaced dash or comma in the text of Bill S-5, but instead about a fundamental element, respect for provincial jurisdiction. In our view, the amendment adopted by the House, particularly with the support and assistance of the Liberal government, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Green Party and the independents—in short, the Conservatives were the only ones who opposed it, and I will have the opportunity to clearly explain why—is an intrusion into areas of jurisdiction.

The amendment as presented was not in the main bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament and in the Senate a year and a half ago. That element was not in it. It is an amendment that was proposed on June 1 2022, almost a year ago, by the senator from Manitoba, an amendment that essentially seeks to regulate tailing ponds and hydraulic fracturing. Basically, when work on natural resources is being carried out and there is hydraulic fracturing, that leaves tailings. That is why a legal framework was developed for that situation. In our view, this amendment, as proposed and adopted by the Senate, is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. That can be challenged, but that is our view.

In fact, our perspective has been so well explained that, when we came before a House of Commons parliamentary committee, the member for Calgary-Centre suggested that these elements of the bill be withdrawn and that this amendment not be adopted. When the member for Calgary-Centre says something, it is because it has merit and is based on facts. There is jurisprudence to support it and relevant documentation. I have learned a lot from the co-operation and work of the member for Calgary-Centre.

He was so convincing that he was able to persuade the government party in the parliamentary committee. All the liberal members, who are not the majority, but the largest parliamentary group in parliamentary committee, decided to support our proposal to set aside Senator McCallum’s amendment presented in June 2022.

Let us review the facts: The bill does not provide for the regulation on hydraulic fracturing. Senator McCallum proposed an amendment to give teeth, depth and political weight to the federal government’s authority over this event. We get to committee and our party says stop, this is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and the Liberals vote with us. It is great, it is perfect, we agree. This is just one of many aspects, and I am focusing on that.

I am being honest, and I am sure that the Liberal MPs will agree with me. It is impossible to fully agree on all of the items.

In fact, I have been known to say that, if someone ever meets a politician who says they are completely in agreement with their leader, their party, all of their colleagues and the election platform, they are looking at a complete liar. It is humanly impossible, and the same is true for everyone. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who I am sure is nodding in agreement with me.

What I am trying to say is that the more than 50 hours of work done in committee was an attempt to achieve consensus. Sometimes we succeeded, sometimes we did not. Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we disagreed. That is the big picture.

We are supportive of the big picture of this bill, but we have some disagreements, as all of the parties have disagreements with some aspects of this bill.

Everything was going well, it was great. We did our work in committee. When we got to the House to make a few speeches and accept the tabled report, three amendments were proposed: two by the Green Party and one by the NDP. The NDP’s amendment is essentially the same as Senator McCallum’s.

That was a surprise and a disappointment, a bitter turn of events. Although we had the support and the agreement of the Liberal Party to make sure there was no interference in provincial jurisdiction, the Liberals switched sides and voted in favour of the NDP’s amendment. I acknowledge that that is their right. Anyone can change their mind. That is called evolution. Sometimes, when we change our minds, we evolve. I will say it that way to be polite.

Some of my colleagues suggested that that is the nature of the coalition. As we know, the government has been working collaboratively with the NDP for a year now, even though they were certainly not given that mandate during the election. Canadians were not asked to vote for a coalition. The NDP said Canadians should vote for them and against the Liberals, and the Liberals said they should vote against the NDP, since they were not the NDP. Now, everyone is perfectly cozy, working together. That is the reality.

The Liberals then flip-flop and support their coalition with the NDP, going against what they did in committee, against protecting provincial jurisdictions, against the fact that a bill should not lead to a constitutional dispute. On the contrary, we need to clarify the situation.

These people crashed the debate and created this situation. What a disappointment. That is why, unfortunately, we will be voting against the bill, which, as amended, creates a legal precedent rife with consequences.

This is why, last week, many of my colleagues from Alberta published a communiqué that says, “Canada's regulatory oversight framework is based upon clear division of responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government, as defined in our Constitution. The continued attempts to muddle this jurisdictional responsibility have led to a convoluted process of project approvals, duplication of costs, and uncertainty amongst investors.”

Basically, what they are saying is that jurisdictional squabbles between the federal and provincial governments slow down projects, slow down the process and create uncertainty. They do not encourage people to move forward. People always hold back a bit. That is unfortunate because Canada is needed now more than ever. The world needs Canada's energy and natural resources more than ever, because we develop those resources responsibly and with respect for human rights in order to ensure they are sustainable. That is what Canada is known for.

When layers of debate are created between the federal and provincial governments, it stalls all of that. Canada deserves better than another squabble between the federal and provincial governments. That is why we do not support this bill. I must also say that I was rather surprised that, both in committee and in the House, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this interference in the debates between the federal and provincial governments. We know that the Bloc Québécois always says that it is there to defend the interests of Quebec and that, by so doing, it is also defending the interests of all the provinces on jurisdictional matters, and yet in this case, the Bloc is giving the federal government more power to intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction, natural resources.

This should come as no surprise. As members will recall, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-69. This actually goes back quite some time. It goes back to June 13, 2019, during the first Parliament of this Liberal government. The Bloc Québécois supported this Liberal government's Bill C-69. One could say that this goes way back, and wonder what it has to do with today's subject.

Bill C-69 established a federal authority that supersedes the provincial authority for the development of hydroelectric resources. Everyone knows that Quebec has extraordinary hydroelectric potential, with dams that were all developed in the 1950s. Most were completed in the 1960s. We are very proud of them. Some that come to mind are the Beauharnois power station, which was expanded three times, or the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 power stations, built in 1953 and 1956. There is also the Carillon generating station, which was given the green light in 1958, and the Manic-Outardes complex, which was developed in the 1950s and completed in the 1960s.

Quebec is very strong on hydroelectric production, but Bill C-69 contains a clause that says that the federal authority has the power to order environmental feasibility studies for these projects. This was well explained in an article by Alexandre Shields in Le Devoir. No one can really say that Mr. Shields and Le Devoir are Conservatives. That is the last thing anyone can say.

In an article published on September 29, 2022, Mr. Shields gives a clear description of the situation saying, “That means that a major project...would involve the submission of an impact assessment study [to the federal government]. The federal government would then lead a process including public consultations and the drafting of a report....Then, the federal Minister of Environment would have to publish a ‘decision statement’ to authorize, or not, the construction of the concrete work.”

Bill C‑69 granted the federal government the option to exercise veto power over hydro projects in Quebec, and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it. The Bloc Québécois voted for the NDP-Liberal coalition amendment, which allows for federal involvement in provincial jurisdictions. That does not make any sense to us. Natural resources are Canada's resources and we should be proud of that. We should be proud of the women and men who work in this sector. We should be proud of these people who, along with many others, create wealth in our country.

The last thing this industry and these people need is a jurisdictional squabble. That is what the Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Green-Independent amendment does. That is why we are voting against this bill.

In closing, I want to say this: This government prides itself on its fine words, but the results are sorely lacking. Let us recall what it said in 2015:

“Canada is back. Canada is back."?

Canada has far to go. The UN handed down a severe verdict in a report tabled at COP27 in Egypt concluding that Canada ranks 58th out of 63 nations on environmental issues. I am not the one saying this. It is written in black and white on page 11 of the UN’s document. This is unacceptable from people who are constantly lecturing everyone. Need I remind members that the Liberals never managed to achieve their own greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? They will say that is not true, that it has happened. The only time it happened was when the country shut down its economy because of COVID-19. I hope that their plan is not to shut down the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Our plan is based on four basic pillars. First, we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through fiscal incentives to invest in new technologies. We need to give green energies the green light so they can be more accessible to Canadians. We need to export Canadian know-how. We should be proud to be Canadians and to develop our natural resource potential because, here at home, in Canada, we do it right.

The fourth pillar is that everything should be done in partnership with the first nations. Together we can meet the challenges of climate change and the environment. Unfortunately, this bill, because of an amendment adopted at the last minute following a reversal by the Liberal Party, with the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the independent MPs, is going to trigger another federal-provincial dispute.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks and his hard work on the ENVI committee.

As I mentioned in my speech, materially, the NDP amendment really does nothing to detract from the bill. It is because of the Kearl tailings pond spill that the committee, in the end, voted to draw attention to this particular issue, so that it gets special attention. It is not a jurisdictional issue. This was already covered under the act and we are very careful about jurisdictional matters with federal legislation.

My understanding was that the Conservatives were going to support the bill coming out of committee. Does this one change cause them to change their mind and to now vote against the bill after 50 hours of deliberations, during which the Conservatives mostly agreed with most of the amendments?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer is really simple: Yes. Unfortunately, yes.

First of all, the hon. member said that amendment changed nothing. So why did he vote for it if it changed nothing? I do not understand why. The issue is what we have seen in Alberta following the tragedy there. Well, everything was said before. If I understand correctly what my colleague said, it changes nothing, and so if it changes nothing why did they vote for it?

We see, unfortunately, an attack on the jurisdictional procedure. Some people will say no, some people will say yes, and that is the problem. We are going to start another fight for that, and who do we think will win that? It will be the lawyers. I have nothing against them, but, yes, for sure, we would start a new fight with that, which is the last thing we need when we talk about climate change, environmental issues and developing our full potential.

Yes, we will vote against the bill, because it is not a minor agreement. We were surprised to see the flip-flop of the Liberals with the support of the NDP, Bloc, Greens and independents.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which, as always, was passionate, well illustrated, and provided some really good arguments.

We are probably experiencing the sixth mass extinction event for the species on our planet. I would like to ask my colleague a very specific question, since we are debating an environmental bill that protects species. Everyone is familiar with the monarch butterfly, that little orange butterfly. It is a species at risk that will now become an endangered species. A good part of the land where the monarch butterfly feeds on milkweed, its main source of food, is part of the Montreal airport. Over the past 10 years, the monarch butterfly population has declined by 85%. Our Minister of Environment says he defends biodiversity, but he is doing absolutely nothing to protect the monarch butterfly on federally owned land.

What would the Conservative Party do to save the monarch butterfly?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit to the member that this is the first time I am hearing about this. I will take that under advisement, because I do not want to treat it like an insignificant detail. On the contrary, little things like that are what is hurting our environment and we need to take the work seriously.

Because we do need to take this work seriously, it would be very hypocritical of me to start pleading on behalf of that beautiful little orange butterfly. It would be like if I were talking about blue jays. Out of respect for this issue, for my colleague, for the House and for myself, I will not just rattle off any old answer, but yes, we need to be careful.

I understand very well the political spin that my colleague is putting on this, seeing how the Minister of Environment, the founder of Équiterre, is currently being sued by Équiterre because he decided to develop the full potential of Canada's natural resources through projects like Bay du Nord, which we applaud.

Beyond that, I will take the member's suggestion under advisement and come back to it another time.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I have a hard time following the Conservatives when it comes to fossil fuels, oil and the fight against climate change.

In the last budget, I do not know how many times I asked the government whether it would stop giving money to big oil. I want to remind members that, in 2022, the five major oil companies made $200 billion in combined profits. In the most recent budget, our friends opposite continued to give those companies money in the form of direct and indirect assistance for carbon capture, which we now know does not work. That is greenwashing.

I do not understand why the Conservatives are voting against giving the oil companies money. I am trying to understand.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I am fully prepared to recognize, and that is the hon. member's love for Quebec and Quebeckers.

I know that he knows—as I said a few moments ago in a parliamentary committee—that Quebeckers do not exist in a vacuum, that they live on planet Earth and that, last year, according to a study by the École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal, Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of oil. Today's reality is that Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year.

I am more than willing to hear all the arguments about getting rid of oil, because it is terrible, because it is this or that. Yes, but the fact is that Quebec consumes 18 billion litres of oil. In addition, 47% of that oil comes from the United States. The last time I checked, neither Texas nor Louisiana contribute to equalization.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments and his speech.

I liked the part in his speech where he said that it was okay to disagree with people from his own party, or with the leader of his party. I agree with that.

I noticed a few things. There is a kind of division that I have a hard time rationalizing. For example, some Conservative members believe in climate change and some do not. In my opinion, the distinction seems geographic.

Can my hon. colleague from Quebec explain why he is being cautious about the oil and gas sector when it comes to this bill?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me pay all my respects to the quality of the member's French. We have all worked to learn a second language. When I talk about a second language, I am not talking about French. I am talking about the second language after our mother tongue language.

For as long as we need natural resources, including fossil resources, and for as long as we need oil, I will always stand for what is right for Canada, just as I support hydroelectricity and everything that comes from our country's natural resources.

Can we be proud to be Canadians? Yes, we can and we must. The same goes for all natural resources.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also opposes the bill. The two parties that will be voting against Bill S-5 are the Green Party and the Conservative Party, but they will do so for completely different reasons.

We think this is a bad bill. It runs counter to the goal of modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The hon. member talked about Bill C-69, which, for the Greens, was also a bad bill. I also voted against Bill C-69 because it establishes a system that is entirely at the discretion of a single minister, with no regulations across all federal regulation.

That was more of a comment than a question.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as some often suggest, people on opposite sides of the world eventually come together. Perhaps that is why the Greens and the Conservatives will be voting the same way, but obviously for different reasons.

The only thing I would like to add about Bill C-69 is something Alexandre Shields wrote in an article on the subject. He said that the office of the environment minister declined to comment on the matter, because it remains a “hypothetical project”. However, the minister did recall the provisions of the act, which clearly stipulate that a new dam would be subject to the act.

If the Quebec government decides to go ahead with a new hydroelectric dam, Ottawa has no say in the matter.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is an absolute failure. I have a two-part question.

Could the member address how the carbon tax is an absolute failure and how it has failed to reduce emissions?

We, as Conservatives, have significant concerns regarding the amendments passed in the Senate. There are 24 different amendments, 11 of which make the bill significantly worse.

After five years of consultation, how can this be drawn out further? Can he speak directly to the Liberal flip-flop causing the bill to collapse?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we just have to look at the facts. After eight years of the Liberal government, people pay more taxes and we still have more pollution. These are the facts. This is why the Liberal carbon tax does not work.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and Quebec's territory.

On April 13, 2022, parliamentarians belonging to all political parties represented in the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion affirming the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in matters of the environment. The elected officials of Quebec unanimously oppose “any intervention by the federal government in matters of the environment on Quebec territory”. The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position and strongly advocates for the interests and values of Quebec in the federal political arena.

That said, in the existing legal framework, the federal government has certain environmental protection responsibilities. Bill S‑5 is part of that effort. Unfortunately, what is lacking are ambitions to guide action on this important file that is environmental protection.

What is even more concerning is the fact that environmental protection, which has been undermined for some time, requires us to make up for measures that should have been implemented a long time ago. This was discussed in our last debate when my colleague from Repentigny called for prevention to be a fundamental pillar of this law.

Quebec's Environment Quality Act, adopted in 1978, underwent a major reform in 2017. The act seeks to protect the environment and safeguard the species inhabiting it. Quebec law prohibits the deterioration of the quality of the environment or the emission of pollutants or contaminants.

In addition to our Civil Code, the following laws are also related to environmental protection in Quebec and its support: the Sustainable Development Act, the Act to affirm the collective nature of water resources and to promote better governance of water and associated environments, the Natural Heritage Conservation Act and the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife.

I had the honour of working on improving the first Quebec law on sustainable development introduced in 2004 at the National Assembly of Quebec and adopted in 2006. I remember the discussions we had about principles related to the foundation of sustainable development, including the precautionary principle. I will come back to that.

Obviously, I need to seek unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague from Repentigny.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.