Debates of May 29th, 2023

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

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

Agreed.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, environmental policy requires trade-offs between health and environmental protection and commercial and industrial interests. If the committee had kept the improvements from the Senate and voted in favour of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois or the ones from the Green Party, this part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would had translated to a much more balanced approach. The refusal to improve the act by relying on best practices will unfortunately allow commercial and industrial interests to dominate and influence decision-making in Canada.

Nevertheless, my colleague from Repentigny secured a victory for environmental protection when it comes to the precautionary principle. In the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the phrase “precautionary principle” was translated as “principe de prudence” in French. In our opinion, this flawed translation did not capture the essence of the precautionary principle, which is to refrain from doing something in case of risk, while “prudence” in French suggests the idea of taking an action and managing its risk. That is very different. The Bloc Québécois believes that recognizing the precautionary principle is essential to framing the implementation of a bill that seeks to protect the environment. The Bloc managed to rally the committee members in favour of correcting this, and we are satisfied and proud of that.

The issue is this. Under the current regime, a substance must be proven to be toxic before it can be banned. In the meantime, such substances may be posing a threat to human or environmental health. Canada is falling behind when it comes to the pace at which new substances are being assessed. If we apply the precautionary principle rather than just being prudent, then, one would hope to see a reversal of the onus of proof, which would mean that authorization would be granted only once a substance has been proven not to be harmful to human or environmental health.

It is true that the intent of Bill S‑5 is to give recourse to those who have been affected by issues involving environmental quality, environmental protection and the protection of living species. The bill seeks to make it mandatory to conduct an environmental impact assessment before carrying out any activity that could pose a high risk to the environment and to create a special access to information regime. It also seeks to regulate projects or activities that might impact wetlands or bodies of water and sets out criminal sanctions for those who break the law.

It is on that last point, the matter of crime, that we see the true scope of the right to a healthy environment.

Our political party is not fooled by the fanfare. Beyond the emotion and promises of the government about the inclusion of this right in the law, no one can deny that its scope will be very limited. If the government were serious about its desire to create a new right, it if had a little political courage, it would propose a round of constitutional negotiations with its partners in the federation to add this right to the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. It would ensure that Canadians could be certain that this right could be enforced and that there would be penalties for breaching it. The government would clearly ensure that it paves the way to greater environmental protection with robust measures carrying penalties.

In case some members are not aware, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is quasi-constitutional in scope. I mention that because this charter established the following in 2006: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.”

Canada's environmental law does not have the same scope.

Enacting laws that are merely symbolic, and therefore not really enforceable, is just wrong.

The details of this right to a healthy environment will be defined and framed by an implementation framework that will not be shared with us until two years from now. The scope of its application will be limited to this single legislative measure. The amendments to Bill S‑5, which proposed balanced, carefully considered legal mechanisms to allow recourse to the courts if that right is violated, were rejected out of hand by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Since we are on the subject, it would be entirely justified to demand that Canada set an example in protecting the environment and human health, which are increasingly at risk because of the toxic substances at the heart of the part of the act covered by Bill S‑5. The government can decide what message it wants to send but, notwithstanding the precautionary principle, are the provisions it describes as improvements in Bill S‑5 really that much of a gain?

My colleague from Repentigny will argue that the absence of a preventive approach and the gutted Senate amendments on public participation perfectly illustrate the bill's missed opportunities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that, at least in good part, we have support coming from the Bloc with regard to Bill S-5.

One of the issues that the hon. member raised was guaranteeing a healthy environment for Canadians. When I look at the legislation, it is a very strong and powerful step in the right direction. I think Canadians as a whole would see it as positive. I have no doubt that it would take a bit of time to work out how we best deal with ensuring that right.

Does the Bloc believe that the only way it could be dealt with is through a constitutional change? If so, does the member really believe that, whether in Quebec, Manitoba or any other jurisdiction, people want to see the Constitution reopened?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: The government talks a great deal about this right to a healthy environment as if it were indeed enshrined in the Constitution. If it were really serious, this right would be constitutionalized.

When the government implements reform and revises laws only to go to committee and oppose improvements—amendments that could improve or, at the very least, guide the government's intentions and expressly reflect those intentions—we have to weigh all that.

When we look at the current government's investments in projects like Bay du Nord, I must say that there is some uncertainty about the government's real desire to improve things.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois member began his speech by talking about Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment and about how Quebec should have full power over environmental matters within its territory.

My question is this. The Bloc Québécois avoided saying much of anything about independence during the past two election campaigns, but this weekend, it talked about little else. Why did this party, which claims to be more separatist than ever, support an amendment by the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Greens and the independents that is a direct attack on a provincial jurisdiction?

More importantly, how is it that, on June 13, 2019, in the House, this member and other colleagues behind him voted in favour of Bill C-69, which gives the federal government veto power over hydroelectric dam projects in Quebec?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague followed the work that was done in committee. One thing is certain. If he wanted to be more accurate, he could have at least said that the Bloc Québécois worked really hard and that its amendment to have the federal government respect Quebec's jurisdictions was not adopted.

My colleague conveniently forgot to mention that because what he is known for in the debates that we have in the House is always putting a partisan spin on things that everyone should agree on and that should be dealt with in a non-partisan manner.

Talking about our convention when we are supposed to be talking about Bill S-5 seems rather obvious and pointless to me. I could have done the same thing, but that is his approach. That is why we are very different, and that is likely why we are not members of the same party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a concern. We do a lot of work with environmental groups. It is good to have legislation that recognizes a citizen's right to a healthy environment. We support that principle. However, what happens if the Liberal government then goes on to approve oil and gas projects that will jeopardize that right to a healthy environment and exacerbate the climate crisis?

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these oil and gas projects will indeed exacerbate the climate crisis and also negatively impact peoples' health. The primary determinant of health and disease is the environment. That is quite obvious. They cannot see the forest for the trees.

When it comes to the environment, there should be no compromise. Then the government is surprised that it needs to sink huge sums into taking care of peoples' health, at least in Quebec. It is all related. How the government is choosing to invest its money does not suggest a real intention to move forward and improve the right to a healthy environment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, concerning Bill S‑5, I think some members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development would agree that our work was very technical and challenging. I would like to commend my parliamentary assistant. As members, we have the microphone, but by our sides are hard-working people. If not for the tireless efforts of Ms. Grimard, I could never have accomplished the work I accomplished in committee.

Before I get to the heart of the matter, I would like to mention that of the 12 parts that make up the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Bill S‑5 essentially addressed part 5, on toxic substances and all matters related to public participation and its corollary, government transparency. Also included were classification procedures as well as evaluations of groups or classes of substances.

As we know, Canada waited 25 years before launching a review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Over the decades, and around the world, some mechanisms went through a major overhaul. Recognizing the progress made is only right and reasonable. We have examples, which I will now discuss.

We had an opportunity to learn from the regulatory regime in the European Union, the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals, or REACH. It is a regulation to improve the protection of human health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals, while enhancing the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry. It strikes a balance.

It is not perfect, of course. It is exposed to lobby groups and regulatory capture, but the system provides for a true analysis per chemical family. If bisphenol A is evaluated, then there will also be an evaluation of the other molecules, such as bisphenol S. There ends up being an evaluation of a large number of chemicals at a time.

Also, products can be marketed only if there has been an analysis, a management assessment that is based both on the risk and the hazards. The confidentiality of corporate data is not in fact protected, but industry must instead justify the need for confidentiality. This regulatory system, with help from the European Chemicals Agency, allows assessments to be done much quicker. Through this mechanism, we can better prevent these substances from entering the market or being present in our consumer products.

It also makes it possible to take a hybrid approach to the management of toxic substances based on both the risks and the hazards. In our opinion, this approach is essential to promoting the prevention of pollution by these substances. It means that when risks cannot be managed, the authorities can restrict the use of substances in various ways and, eventually, the most dangerous substances must be replaced with less dangerous ones or are simply are banned.

In committee, I asked Joseph F. Castrilli, an environmental law expert with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, questions about the benefits of the European regulation, with which he is familiar. He replied that the Canadian Environmental Law Association had incorporated part of the REACH regulation into its proposed amendments.

These proposed amendments were brought forward by the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. Unfortunately for us, these proposed amendments were not accepted as the Liberal-Conservative coalition voted against them.

The president of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada attended the same meeting. I asked him the same question abut the European regulation. He told me that that was already being done in Canada.

There were two different stories. I did not have time to delve any further, so I could not follow up on issues that should have been raised during the meeting. Clearly, the industry representatives did not like the fact that I had brought up REACH. Within minutes, the Bloc Québécois received an email to further explain REACH. That was not my first time seeing something like that. When someone disagrees with the industry, it is because they lack education, so the industry will simply try to do a better job of explaining things.

I would say that the email was a bit misleading, but the Bloc Québécois had done its homework to get a good sense of this European system. REACH puts the burden of proof on companies, and that is fine. Industry may well recommend designations, but there are sectoral committees of experts and specialists such as the expert group on persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances. I will use imagery that everyone can understand. It is as if there are clearly visible lines on the pavement and REACH adds guardrails to prevent us from falling over the edge.

The European federation's regulatory framework includes various mechanisms that do not exist, or are very tentative, in Canada. That is the truth. These are tools that, although they do not make it entirely safe, certainly have the merit of slowing down what I call the gangrene of regulatory capture and leaving “everything to the industry”.

In Europe, REACH strikes a balance between the risk-based approach advocated by industry and the hazard-based approach, which it wants to avoid at all costs. Furthermore, the REACH process and that of the European Chemicals Agency clearly make room for public consultation. Yes, ordinary citizens have their say, but so do experts in toxicology and medicine, as well as specialists in regulation and standardization. The public consultation process provided for under REACH really does exist. A person would have to be acting in bad faith to say that REACH makes no room for public consultation.

This consultation is so comprehensive that in European public processes, calls for comments and evidence allow interested parties to register their interest, express their views in the preparatory phase and comment on the various documents relating to restrictions. There is transparency; reports are accessible. The public can also submit additional information to justify or support their comments. Canada could have followed that example. Unfortunately, I have to say that it was a missed opportunity.

Let us come back to Bill S‑5. Bill S‑5 was sent to the House with impressive improvements regarding public participation and transparency. Amendments were proposed to clarify and relax some sections without compromising rigour. However, it is a disappointment. We had hoped that, after over 20 years or two decades of waiting, the government would enshrine its oft-repeated claims in law. This could have been such an extraordinary moment. Unfortunately, I would say that transparency, consultation and science were left by the wayside, which I found disappointing.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has reminded the House many times that his department's work has been applauded by environmental groups, which is true. However, he mentioned only the praise and none of the criticism that we see when we read the rest of the news release.

The government and the official opposition both said no to prescriptive language that would have increased the public's access to the consultation process. That would have also helped the government to be more transparent and considerate towards the individuals and civil society groups concerned. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against this progress, which came from the Senate, and against the amendments proposed by the opposition.

I will close by saying that I will continue to be involved in the upcoming legislation to review the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has committed to. As members can see, I do not give up easily. I do have one wish. I hope that when it counts, the government will build and play its role as legislator with integrity for the public and not just for industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide some thoughts in regard to the issue of toxic chemicals. Given the way technology has advanced and given chemists' contributions to many aspects of life in general, we know there is a need to stay on top of the issue of toxic chemicals and chemicals that could be listed as toxic. Does she have any insights that she would like to share with the House with respect to that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for the question.

The advantage, for example, in Europe, is that assessments are done by family of toxic substances, allowing much more to get done. What happens here is that the substance is put on the market and the assessment is done afterward. In the meantime, if the substance is unfortunately declared toxic, it ends up in our consumer products and in the air. That is what I really wanted to see change.

Yes, in Quebec we have our department and our laws, which are much stricter and more restrictive than federal legislation, but the thing is, the environment is across Canada, it is across the planet. Essentially, we have to try to adopt best practices. Unfortunately we had the opportunity to do that, but we did not.

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

Mr. Speaker, important things are happening here in Parliament, but important things are also happening in society. On behalf of the NDP, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the sudden passing of the Quebec actor Michel Côté and to offer our condolences to his family and friends. This is an immense loss for the Quebec theatre community and the artistic community. I am sure my colleague shares these sentiments.

On the subject of the environment, it is all well and good to have the right to a healthy environment, but many folks would argue that this does not go far enough and that we should be using a new term, “ecocide”, which would put environmental crimes on the same level as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Instances of massive environmental destruction could then be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court. There is a whole movement known as Stop Ecocide Canada and Stop Ecocide International.

Is this something my colleague could see being useful for defending the environment?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Seriously, I was running around all morning and I did not look at the newspapers. I did not know that Michel Côté had passed away. Truly, when my colleague mentioned it, I was in shock and could hardly believe it. I extend my condolences to Michel Côté's family, and I am certain we will take the time to do so at the appropriate moment.

Now, as for ecocide, I invite parliamentarians to attend an event from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Wednesday with the people from Stop Ecocide Canada. It is an extraordinary idea, an idea that is serious and goes a long way. However, if we do not start talking about it now, it will never happen. I think these people are very courageous to propose the idea of ecocide in an oil-producing country. We have to start somewhere and I congratulate them for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy once again to rise and speak to Bill S-5, a bill that updates the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I have spoken a couple of times on this bill at various stages, and I will repeat some of the messages I gave in those speeches. Here we are at third reading. We have responded to the committee report, which brought forward a few amendments, including one from the NDP that was voted on at report stage. At committee, Conservatives and Liberals took out a statement about tailings ponds in particular. The NDP proposed a report stage amendment that put those words back into Bill S-5 that were put there originally by the Senate, which dealt with this bill before us, and I was happy that amendment passed.

Now, I am a bit discouraged that Conservatives seem to be indicating they are withdrawing their support for this bill just because of those two words, “tailings ponds”, going back into it. I am not sure why they consider the words so toxic that they cannot support the bill, but we are very much of the opinion that it really needs to be highlighted as one of the points in protecting the Canadian environment. We have had so many issues around tailings ponds, not just in the last few months at the Kearl project in Alberta, but in British Columbia with the Mount Polley disaster, and various other situations. This bill, Bill S-5, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act really deal with how we should deal with toxins that are put into the Canadian environment, and tailings ponds are one example of where, when we have disasters, an inordinate number of toxins are poured into the environment at once. I think that requires special mention, and I am glad we see that wording back in this version of the bill here at third reading.

Just to give some background, this bill was first introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-28. It was never brought to the floor of the House to debate, and, months later, the government called an election, so it died on the Order Paper. However, it gave Canadians and environmental law experts and scientists a chance to look at this long-overdue bill to update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as it has been over 20 years. Those people found a lot to be concerned about that was missing from the bill. The government had a year to answer those concerns, yet in this Parliament it introduced the bill exactly as it was in Bill C-28, so there was no attempt to fix things ahead of time, which has caused real problems.

I have even heard Liberals saying in debate at report stage that we need a new version of CEPA, so we need a new bill to update it as quickly as possible to fix those things, because they were found to be out of scope. We cannot expand the scope of bills here in this place once they come to us, and this bill requires some of that desperately, which I will talk about later.

Since CEPA was first introduced over 20 years ago, the number of chemicals that people in Canada are exposed to in their daily lives has grown exponentially. I think it has grown by over 50 times since 1950 and is expected to continue on that trajectory. All these chemicals are toxic in their own way. These are brand-new chemicals that natural environments have no experience with, and we are only discovering, year after year, the impacts of these chemicals on our environment, our health and the health of plants and animals in our environment, even at very small levels. Over the last two decades, science has discovered more about the cumulative effects of even small doses of these toxic chemicals, and without this modernized legislation, Canadians would continue to be exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals.

This is long overdue. Environmental scientists and environmental legal experts have long recognized that. Some of the changes that Bill S-5 would make to CEPA that are significant are the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, and I will talk more about that later; the commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, under the act; strengthening the chemicals management plan, including to take into consideration vulnerable populations, cumulative effects, reproductive and endocrine toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and neurotoxicity; alternatives and class-based assessments to avoid harmful substitutions; and labelling and other-risk communication.

I would like to back up now and just say how Canadians are so proud of this country, and one of the great sources of that pride is our environment. We are blessed to live in a vast country, and our relatively small population, concentrated at the southern border, has given us the impression that our environment will remain clean, healthy and sustainable, no matter what we do to it and no matter what we throw at it. That attitude has, obviously, gradually changed over the last 50 years or so, and now over 90% of Canadians believe that it is important that we have the explicit right to live in a clean and healthy environment. It is very timely that this bill finally recognizes that right.

Last year, on July 28, 2022, the UN General Assembly passed a unanimous resolution that recognized the right to a healthy environment around the world. One hundred and fifty-nine countries already have legal obligations to protect the human right to a healthy environment, but Canada does not. There are environmental bills of rights in Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but there is no federal law that explicitly recognizes the right to live in a healthy environment. Bill S-5 would change that, so it is a positive step forward, but it is important to back up declarations of rights with legislation that enforces those rights.

Unfortunately, the previous version of CEPA was considered unenforceable, and this one is no better. In fact, the Senate committee studying Bill S-5 wanted to fix this enforceability and, quite remarkably, the senators attached this note to the bill when they sent it forward to the House. After they had passed it with the amendments that they could make, they attached this message. I have read this message in each of the speeches I have given, but it is so remarkable that it bears repeating. This is what the Senate committee said:

This committee would like to state their concern that the right to a healthy environment cannot be protected unless it is made truly enforceable. This enforceability would come by removing the barriers that exist to the current remedy authority within Section 22 of CEPA, entitled “Environmental Protection Action.” There is concern that Section 22 of CEPA contains too many procedural barriers and technical requirements that must be met to be of practical use. As Bill S-5 does not propose the removal or re-evaluation of these barriers, this Committee is concerned that the right to a healthy environment may remain unenforceable.

As I said before, the reason the Senate did not amend this bill to make it enforceable is that it was considered out of scope. The real disappointment here, of course, is that the government had a year to fix this. It knew that this enforceability was one of the main concerns people had about Bill C-28 in the previous Parliament, but the government did not fix it. I don't know whether that was just out of incompetence or whether it really did not want to fix it.

This relates directly to the welcome new declaration in Bill S-5 that Canadians have a right to live in this healthy and clean environment, but we need a transparent and open process to hold the government to account with respect to that declaration and to that right.

As I have said, CEPA is primarily concerned with protecting Canadians and their environment from the toxic chemicals we are so good at inventing, producing and pumping into our environment. There has been a fiftyfold increase in those chemicals over the past number of decades. However, CEPA does not concern itself in general with other matters of federal legislation around the environment, such as environmental impact assessments, fish habitat, migratory birds, species at risk, etc., so this declaration of the right to live in a clean, healthy environment has rather narrow coverage. It covers only matters within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I have a private member's bill, Bill C-219, that is called the Canadian environmental bill of rights. It was first written and presented by Linda Duncan, the former NDP MP for Edmonton Strathcona. Ms. Duncan is an expert environmental lawyer who produced this environmental bill of rights and introduced it over three Parliaments during her time here. It passed second reading in 2009 or 2010 and went to committee, but each time she presented it, it did not make it through the full Senate procedure, so it never became law. I was very honoured and happy to present it again as Bill C-219 in this Parliament.

Among other things, it basically takes that right to live in a clean, healthy environment that Bill S-5 talks about and expands it to the other Canadian federal legislation that we have that deals with the environment. It is not a broad-brush approach, but specifically attached to those pieces of legislation. In fact, when the House of Commons legal team was asked whether it was constitutional, the answer was that of course it is constitutional because it is not really an environmental bill; it is a human rights bill. It holds the government to account for doing what it should be doing under those different environmental pieces of legislation that we have at the federal level.

I would like to make it clear that the NDP will be voting in favour of Bill S-5. We are happy that the government has ceded to some of the amendments that we wanted bring in to improve Bill S-5. We did not get all that we wanted, but we think this is an important step forward, and we are certainly happy that there is language about the right to live in a clean and healthy environment that is finally recognized within federal legislation. We are happy that this bill confirms the government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples under the act.

This bill has many shortcomings, some of which I have listed, but one that I have not mentioned is the total lack of anything around air pollution, toxins in the air. This is something that we really have to get into federal legislation, because it is just as important, if not more so, than some of the other forms of pollution we have to deal with.

I am heartened to hear comments from Liberal members that they would welcome a new version of Bill S-5, a brand new update to CEPA that would bring in some of the problems that have been considered out of scope here, especially around enforceability.

As I say, most Canadians, including myself, would be happy to see this bill pass. I know that most parties will be voting for this bill, albeit some reluctantly. I am disappointed to hear that the Conservatives seem to be pulling their support over the tailings ponds issue. I hope that the Senate will deal with it promptly, so that we can enjoy its benefits and quickly start the process of crafting that new bill that will make CEPA even stronger. That act would truly protect Canadians and ensure that we, along with our children and grandchildren, can continue to live in the clean and healthy environment that is our right.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Going out of second reading, there was a sense that we would be receiving virtually unanimous support. Although the Green Party had reservations in regard to Bill S-5, it looked as though it was going in a forward direction, with the Conservatives actually supporting it. Having listened to Conservatives earlier today, the best I can tell is that they do not want to support the bill because of an amendment related to tailings ponds.

The member was there at the committee stage. Can he explain to the House what he believes is so substantial within the amendment that it is now causing the Conservative Party to vote against the legislation as a whole?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I was not there at the committee stage to hear that, but I have heard comments in debate here about it. It was an issue during the debate at report stage. However, the member would have to ask the Conservatives that question. I can only guess, and I would rather not put my suppositions onto this. However, I am disappointed.

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

Mr. Speaker, we originally talked about supporting the bill. We are absolutely for the environment. We are conservationists at heart across the way in the opposition here. However, one thing we are deeply worried about is the government's over-regulation.

I come from northern B.C., where oil and gas is a big part of what we can give the world in terms of reducing pollution. I was also just up in Yukon, talking to them about critical minerals and getting those developed. However, they say that with the government's over-regulation, instead of getting it developed within eight years, it is going to take at least 30 years. Therefore, here we are seeing more red tape being added to getting our resources developed with this legislation.

Can the member answer this question: What is he going to do to actually see some of the good things that Canada produces get to world markets?

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent much of last week in Washington, D.C., with the international trade committee. We talked to quite a number of legislators and congressmen, and almost every one of them brought up this issue: How are we going to get materials mined so that we can get the clean tech of tomorrow going? They all said that what the United States needs is a mining impact assessment system like Canada's system. They held up Canada's system as the shining example of how things should be done.

Therefore, I do not know what concerns the Conservatives have. Apparently, from the outside world, we are seen as leaders in developing mines and developing them properly, so that we have not only a clean environment but also the materials we need for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, now that we are at the last stage of the bill, third reading, it is not that the Green Party has reservations, as my colleague just said. Unfortunately, the Green Party is now against the bill because it would weaken our ability to regulate toxic chemicals across Canada and because it only pretends to create the right to a healthy environment. It is a right that cannot be enforced; it is basically a bumper sticker and not a right.

Again, everyone who is concerned about the environment across Canada and various environmental groups are being told that the government will bring out a new version of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act really soon. What is my hon. colleague's honest assessment of how likely this is and when it may happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. However, I am not holding my breath. I think that if the government wanted to do this right, it would have done it right the first time.

All I would say is that my private member's bill has that enforceability part baked into it and extends it to the other parts of the Canadian federal legislation on the environment. It carves out CEPA, because of issues around that legislation, but I would hope the government would use this as a model to fix CEPA once and for all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with the leader of the Green Party and the suggestion about looking at the right to a healthy environment. At the end of the day, it is incorporated into the legislation. I suspect that what we will see will be more information being provided on the issue of those rights in the coming days, weeks and months ahead.

I think we need to recognize that this is a significant step forward, where we have a government policy, in essence, making it very clear. It is more than just a policy; it is done through legislation. Canadians have a right to a healthy environment.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how important it is to talk about this. There has been a lot of discussion about the environment in general, but when we get a statement of that nature in law, it is a significant step forward. Obviously, it is not going to resolve all the issues. Mechanisms, protocols and so forth need to be established. At the very least, we have a government for the first time that is actually incorporating that sort of a principle in legislation.

Would he not agree that the incorporation of a right to a healthy environment is good for all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I think it is a good idea that we have a right to a healthy environment embedded in some legislation. I would say that the government was so timid about this that when they first brought forward Bill S-5, that right was only in the preamble. It had to be moved into the body of the text to have any legal impact at all. However, we are hearing now that it is unenforceable, as all kinds of civilian actions towards this bill are, and we need that changed.

Yes, this is a step in the right direction. As in so many things with the government, better is always possible. I would hope that we would see some movement very quickly to fix this so that Canadians can truly have that right to live in a healthy and clean environment and back it up with some accountability for government actions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to legislation that will have a very positive impact on Canadians.

If we listen to what Canadians are talking about, we often hear the issue of the environment coming up. Within the Liberal caucus, I can assure people who are following the debate that, whether it is me or members of the Liberal caucus, we have a high degree of sensitivity in wanting to ensure that what we are doing here in Ottawa reflects Canadians' desires and interests in terms of what they are telling us.

Canadians tell us that the environment does matter and that it counts. We have a government in a minority situation. They would like to see members of Parliament, on all sides of the House, recognize the importance of the issue of the environment and start taking actions to support the words we use during an election.

We see the position that the official opposition is taking on the environment. I want to use two examples. Today, it is all about Bill S-5 and what is happening with it. It is about how the Conservative Party has once again made a change towards the environment. I would suggest that this is a negative change. This is consistent with what the Conservative Party did in the last federal election.

We constantly get criticized by the Conservatives regarding a price on pollution. Most Canadians see and recognize the value of this, as do other countries and jurisdictions around the world. They see that pollution should not be free and that there should be a price on pollution. However, only the Conservative Party of Canada here in the House of Commons, from the get-go, said it opposed a price on pollution. After being tuned up by Canadians, it actually said it is now in favour of a price on pollution.

In the last federal election, every one of the members sitting here today actually said they agreed with a price on pollution in their election platform. They all campaigned on it. However, with a new, shiny, ultra-right leader, they now say they do not support a price on pollution.

How is that relevant to the debate we are having today? It is relevant because not that long ago, about two weeks ago, the Conservatives were telling Canadians that they voted in favour of Bill S-5 and they thought Bill S-5 was a good idea. They were right two weeks ago when they were telling that to Canadians. They were ultimately responding, in part, to what their constituents were telling them.

One of the biggest things in Bill S-5 deals with the right to a healthy environment. Imagine taking a statement of that nature and incorporating it into law. This is why I asked my NDP colleague to provide a comment on it. Given what Canadians are telling us about the importance of the environment, how could someone oppose that? How is it possible that the Conservatives would vote against it?

If we want to talk about popping the bubble of hope, that is what the Conservatives have done in recent days. The Conservatives have said that they now oppose Bill S-5. Why did they flip-flop?

[An hon. member]

Because of you. You flip-flop.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they say it is because of me. I do not think I carry that much influence within the Conservative caucus.

I can say that the Conservatives are on the wrong side of yet another important environmental issue. They need to understand that the environment does matter. When they say they are now opposed to it, what are they voting against? They are voting against what their leader often talks about: common sense.

Why would one oppose the right to a healthy environment? Yes, a lot of regulations and protocols need to be established to ensure that right, but, again, for the very first time, we actually have that now in legislation, the very same legislation that the official opposition is going to vote against when it comes up for a vote.

Maybe we should wait another week or two. Maybe they might change their mind again on this issue.

It is an important vote. We are dealing with additional regulations to deal with toxic chemicals. What is it about toxic chemicals that the Conservative Party of Canada feels, within this legislation, is bad? We are not hearing that.

The Conservatives are not saying that they do not like this legislation because of this particular aspect. They are talking about tailings ponds and apparently that is what caused them to flip, even though, before the amendment, it came to the House from the Senate with it.

One has to start questioning where the Conservative Party is on the environment. I will give part two when we begin debate again after question period.