Debates of May 3rd, 2023

(Return tabled)

Question No.1324—

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

With regard to immigration and housing: (a) what measures does the government have in place to address likely increases in refugees seeking to cross our borders due to climate instability, and what provinces have been consulted on these measures; (b) broken down by department and year since 2013, what is the name of all reports commissioned by the government assessing refugee migration due to climate instability; (c) how is the impact of refugees from current crises, such as in Afghanistan and Ukraine, factored into meeting the government’s housing objectives, and what additional amounts are allocated to the National Housing Strategy to respond to such events; and (d) how is the impact of refugees anticipated as a result of climate instability factored into meeting the government’s housing objectives, and what additional amounts are allocated to the National Housing Strategy to respond to such events?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1326—

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

With regard to individuals seeking asylum who entered Canada at Roxham Road: (a) how many individuals have crossed into Canada at Roxham Road in total, broken down by year since 2015; (b) how many individuals are being sheltered by the government as of March 16, 2023; (c) what are the names and locations of each hotel or motel currently contracted by the government to provide such shelter; and (d) what is the total amount, or approximate total amount, the government has spent since November 4, 2015, on hotels or motels for individuals who have entered at Roxham Road?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1327—

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

With regard to the Royal Military College of Canada, broken down by year for the 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 academic years: (a) what is the mandated female student ratio; (b) how many students were accepted into first year intake; (c) what is the breakdown of (b) by gender; (d) how many students identifying as male were declined admission in order to meet the female student ratio; and (e) what is the admissions cap for first year intake?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

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

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

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

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

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill S-5.

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved:

That the amendment to Clause 9 of Bill S-5 be deleted.

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

, seconded by the member for Victoria, moved:

Motion No. 2

That the amendment to Clause 39.1 of Bill S-5 be amended by replacing subsections 108.1(1) and (2) with the following:

“108.1 (1) If the information that the Ministers assess under subsection 108(1) or (2) is in respect of a vertebrate or a prescribed living organism or group of living organisms, the Ministers shall ensure that the public is provided with the opportunity to bring forward any relevant Indigenous knowledge and scientific information before the expiry of the period for assessing that information.

(2) If the Minister is provided under paragraph 106(1)(a) with information in respect of a vertebrate or a prescribed living organism or group of living organisms, the Minister shall publish that information in the Environmental Registry within five days after its receipt.”

Motion No. 3

That the amendment to Clause 44.1 of Bill S-5 be amended by adding the following after paragraph 114(1)(g.1):

“(g.2) prescribing processes for the consideration of Indigenous knowledge and scientific information provided to the Ministers under subsection 108.1(1);”

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in Parliament to represent the people of Victoria.

People in my community care deeply about the environment. Protecting coastal ecosystems, being able to enjoy clean lakes and clean rivers and to breathe clean air are things that people in Victoria, and across our country, care deeply about. They are things we cannot take for granted. It is why enshrining the right to a healthy environment in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is so important. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the largest piece of legislation that governs environmental protection in Canada, and it has been over 20 years since the last time it was updated. The world has changed and toxic substances are different than they were two decade ago.

The bill was an opportunity to address environmental justice and to better protect the most marginalized who are impacted by pollution. This was such an important opportunity to strengthen environmental protections, and there are some great pieces of this legislation, but there were also so many missed opportunities. While Bill S-5 does not address a number of critical aspects of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that need to be updated, I am going to start by outlining what we accomplished in committee, what was accomplished in the Senate and why it is important to pass this bill.

The right to a healthy environment would be recognized for the first time under federal law. We were able to strengthen the legislation in committee to ensure that there would be a duty for the government to uphold the principles of environmental justice, intergenerational equity and non-regression. The bill would also require the federal government to take the cumulative impacts of toxins and their effects on vulnerable populations into account. I want to thank Senator McCallum for her work in providing amendments for vulnerable populations. The bill would also update how we control toxic substances and dangerous chemicals. It would prioritize prohibiting the most hazardous substances, and New Democrats worked to improve transparency and accountability.

The bill would not be as strong without the amendments that we fought for and passed at the environment committee, or without the work of senators like Mary Jane McCallum and others, who strengthened the bill in the Senate.

Unfortunately, there were so many important amendments that the government and the Conservatives voted against. They went so far as to take out provisions in the bill so as to water down environmental protections, undermine provisions for public consultation and protection of indigenous rights, and deny Parliament the opportunity to deal with the grave concerns around enforcement. They voted against amendments on the right to a healthy environment for future generations, including voting against implementing enforceable air quality standards, stronger labelling requirements for consumer products, and requirements for public and indigenous consultations regarding genetically engineered organisms, among others.

It was disappointing that the Liberals and the Conservatives teamed up to undermine environmental protections, but it was not surprising to see them, yet again, listening to corporate lobbyists instead of scientists, doctors and environmental experts. One example of this was when the Liberals and Conservatives joined together to remove the reference to tailings ponds in the bill. This egregious amendment came from the Conservative members, who argued that tailings ponds are being managed very well. This is blatantly ignoring the science, the reports and the testimony from indigenous communities about the impact of pollution from tailings ponds. What was shocking is that the Liberals, who say they care about the environment, voted with the Conservatives to remove this vital provision. Pollution from tailings ponds is having devastating effects on communities, and the Liberal members on committee decided they would take out the only reference to tailings ponds in this legislation.

Not even a month after this amendment passed, it was widely reported that the oil and gas giant Imperial Oil had a massive tailings pond leak that affected many indigenous communities near the site, including the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. What makes this case particularly horrific is that it has been happening since May 2022 and that the indigenous nations that were impacted were only informed almost a year later, in February 2023. This was after 5.3 million litres of toxic waste seeped into the ground and watershed that these communities rely on. That is two Olympic-sized swimming pools of toxic waste. Members from these communities came to speak about the failures of this federal government: the failure to protect the environment and the failure to protect the indigenous communities that were impacted.

We must do more. We need to address this failure and properly regulate tailings ponds. This is why I put forward a report stage amendment to put the words “tailings ponds” back into the bill. I urge my colleagues in the chamber to vote in support of this amendment.

Another area where the bill fails is on air quality. In fact, Bill S-5 does not mention air quality. Air pollution is the single greatest environmental risk to human health. Health Canada estimates that air pollution kills more than 15,000 people each year in Canada, and it is responsible for over $120 billion in socio-economic costs to the Canadian economy. Exposure to air pollution increases the risk of stroke, heart attack and lung cancer, as well as chronic and acute respiratory illnesses, such as asthma. There are also links to neurological diseases and adverse birth effects.

The U.S. has had enforceable air quality standards for over 50 years. However, Canada has decided to continue to rely on voluntary standards. David Boyd, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, said that legally binding and enforceable ambient air quality standards are not just a matter of protecting the environment and public health, but that they are also important in creating a more equal Canada.

Air pollution affects everyone, causing widespread violations of the right to breathe clean air, yet the burden of related diseases has a disproportional impact on certain vulnerable populations. Among the most severely harmed are women, children, the elderly, minorities, indigenous people, people living in poverty, people with pre-existing health conditions such as respiratory conditions or heart disease, and people who fall into several of these categories. Major sources of ambient air pollution, including power plants, refineries, factories, incinerators and busy roads, are often located in poor and racialized communities. Therefore, implementing ambient air quality standards in law and enforcing those standards across Canada is a matter of environmental justice.

Parliament should strengthen Bill S-5 to ensure that Canada's first law recognizing the right to a healthy environment does not overlook action on air pollution. People's lives depend on it. When given the chance to make the Canadian Environmental Protection Act the strongest piece of environmental protection possible, the Liberals and Conservatives listened to the interests of big corporations over those of scientists and environmental experts.

I also want to mention the amendments put forward by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. When it comes to protection of nature and when it comes to addressing genetically modified organisms, we need to ensure not only that we are listening to science, but also that we are listening to indigenous communities that are impacted when the Canadian government pushes through approvals for genetically modified salmon and other organisms that are central to the culture and livelihood of indigenous communities.

There is a lot more to be said, but I will conclude by saying that my NDP colleagues and I are going to keep fighting to ensure that we protect our environment, that we protect human health and that we protect everything that we hold most dear for ourselves, for our children and for future generations. I am proud of the work that has been done, and I will be voting for this bill, but I hope that we do not wait another two decades to make these changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Victoria for her work on this very important bill and the collaboration that we enjoyed. We worked closely on this bill for a number of months.

I disagree with her characterization of the ultimate result. From what I have heard from environmental groups, industry representatives and health professionals, the feedback coming to me is that this is a good bill that moves the agenda forward. This is not the last that we will hear of CEPA. We will be entertaining further improvements when other sections of the act open up.

Would the hon. member acknowledge that collecting information on tailings ponds is already a provision under CEPA? We had a very robust discussion in committee, and it was decided that this was redundant and was singling out one particular industry. We could have added 10 more.

We are, in fact, dealing with the Kearl issue, which is a separate subject. We are all in agreement that what happened in Alberta was absolutely unacceptable, and we are putting measures in place for a better monitoring and reporting system for the good people of northern Alberta.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his work on committee, but I have to say that I am extremely disappointed by the question.

I was extremely disappointed to see Liberal members vote alongside the Conservatives to take out the only reference to tailings ponds in this entire piece of legislation. This is an issue that is impacting indigenous communities right now, and the fact that the government has decided that it does not want the words “tailings ponds” in CEPA is egregious, in my opinion.

Honestly, I hope that the members in the House are listening. I hope that they will take the time to listen to indigenous communities who are impacted by the toxic pollution from tailings ponds and that they will reverse this decision and vote in favour of the report stage amendment to put the words “tailings ponds” back into CEPA.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Victoria for voting, in committee, for a number of the over 24 amendments that the Green Party tried to put forward. We worked on Bill S-5 from mid-December right through to March. All those good amendments were defeated, as were the many good amendments that had been brought forward by the Senate.

By the way, I cannot vote for this legislation. We are asked to believe that the legislation is so important, but the government knows it is flawed; if we just wait a minute, any minute now, the Liberal government will bring forward a new version of amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Nobody has touched this act for 20 years. It stretches credulity to the breaking point.

Has my hon. colleague from Victoria seen any evidence that there is a likelihood of any new legislation from the government on the various sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that were not touched in this amendment review?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her diligent work in committee in attempting to strengthen this piece of legislation. The answer is no.

If the government were serious about actually amending the pieces, especially section 22 on enforcement of the right to a healthy environment, it would have done it this time. This is a critical piece, which it did not allow us to open up.

I do not think it would do to argue for any other well-known bill that the government will be putting it forward now, but we should not worry because another bill will be put forward in a few months or years. We know that it took 24 years for this iteration, this update. It has been years and years of advocacy to get to this point where we can modernize CEPA.

It stretches the imagination to think that it is going to table a comprehensive “CEPA 2” bill in this Parliament. I do not believe it, but I think it is critical that we start pushing the government to do this work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start with the matter before us right now and hope that members will decide to support the amendments that have been put forward in today's debate at report stage. My hon. colleague, the member for Victoria, has just walked through some of them. I want to stress that it is important to vote in favour of the reasoned NDP amendment put forward by the hon. member for Victoria, which is to restore a change that was made in the Senate.

Anyone watching this could be confused. Are changes made in the Senate? Are they going back to the Senate? What is going on here? This is a fundamental concern I have about the bill. The Minister of Environment had the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act put forward in the previous Parliament, in June 2021. This was when the Liberal government was pretty sure it was going to bring itself down and have a snap election in midsummer. Therefore, it was put on the Order Paper with no intention of really pursuing it. However, this did give people, environmental law groups and others a chance to read it and say that there is more that needs to be done here. There were a lot of efforts in that regard, to which I will refer later.

We got back from the election, and there was nothing on the Order Paper for the long-promised amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Therefore, the minister and the Liberal machinery for putting forward legislation decided they ought to start this one in the Senate. Why was this? It was because it was not such an important bill to the Liberal Party that they would start it in the House. It could not get House time, so it was started in the Senate.

Then there was this convoluted process. The Senate worked hard. By the way, having worked on this bill, the Senate sent a letter to the House that said it could not get to some of the key amendments it really needed to make, particularly to make the right to a healthy environment enforceable. This is outside the scope of the bill. What does that mean to people who might be watching this and wondering why I would be voting against the Canadian Environmental Protection Act amendments? In order to make the right to a healthy environment enforceable, one would have needed to open up section 22, which is the section of CEPA that deals with enforcement.

That was not before the Senate as a possible place for an amendment any more than it was before the House of Commons environment committee. This is because section 22 has never been used, in the entire long history of this act; it is unusable. We really needed to open that up.

Those were the many amendments made in the Senate. The Senate then said there were some things that really needed to be changed that it could not get at. However, the Senate succeeded in amending this bill to say that we have to pay attention to tailings ponds; that point was then deleted by the House of Commons environment committee. This is why the hon. member for Victoria has put forward the amendment that we find in Motion No. 1 before us today. The amendment to clause 9 that was made in committee restores what had been done in the Senate. I know the procedural path here is a bit circuitous.

I have brought forward amendments, and I want to credit those groups that did the work on them. Nature Canada, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and a number of other groups wanted to see meaningful public participation in this legislation. In order to make sure of this, the amendments put forward at report stage changed the bill substantially. In terms of language, we move away from saying what the bill says now, which is that there will be a consultation with interested parties. “Interested parties” has a particular meaning in law, which might not be the public or necessarily scientists. It would not be indigenous people. The amendment is a compromise.

I want to stress that this is a compromise from what we wanted or what we hoped to get at report stage, which is to allow that when there is a decision to genetically modify a living organism, indigenous knowledge is an important component to looking at that kind of a decision. That is the first amendment. For instance, we have had genetic modification of salmon in this country. We are the only country in the world, by the way, that allows genetic modification of a fish that is intended for human consumption. Pacific salmon are sacred to indigenous peoples in the territories I represent. The second amendment deals with the processes for considering indigenous knowledge and scientific information.

It is really important that we identify where the barriers to this kind of thing lie. Some of them, unfortunately, are in the advice the minister received from people within Environment Canada. This should be a process with significant public participation. However, there is a counter-argument from John Moffett, who is the senior Environment Canada expert in this area. In the evidence given to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on February 16, John Moffett said, “This is not a public participation process. This is a science-based process.”

That would all be very well and good if scientists could also intervene at this point, but it is not clear they can. To say this is not a public process flies in the face of commitments Liberals have made that there will be public participation, there will be indigenous knowledge and we will listen to scientists.

Before my time expires to speak to the rest of the bill, I really urge members on all sides of the House to give favourable consideration to these three amendments at report stage. They will substantially increase the chance that we will have meaningful public participation, including incorporating indigenous knowledge into the bill.

I am going to go through the deep disappointment I feel in Bill S-5. It is tragic, really. Members may believe it or not, but I worked on this bill before first reading in 1988. I know I do not look old enough for this to be true, or at least I would like to believe that.

I worked on this bill in 1988, when it was brought forward in the time of the Mulroney government. A majority Progressive Conservative government brought forward the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It brought together many disparate pieces of legislation, including the ocean dumping act and the air quality act, and it created part 5, which is all we are really dealing with here today.

We are dealing with part 5 of the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act, on toxic substances. We are not dealing with part 6, which we should, to modernize genetically modified organisms and how we regulate them. We are not dealing with the parts on the ocean dumping act, which are crying out for amendments. We have a lot going on right now with our ports with cruise ships.

We know we are going to hear the trumpets, the horns and the hallelujahs that we have put a right to a healthy environment into this bill. What kind of a right is it if it is not enforceable? A non-enforceable right is a bumper sticker. It is good to have in the bill, and people can point to it and say it is improvement; however, it is not a right if we cannot enforce it.

The deep disappointment gets deeper when we look at the changes to the schedule for toxic chemicals. The Canadian Environmental Law Association talked of this in its briefs. I agree with it, having worked on this legislation for longer than I care to mention. This bill survived constitutional challenge in the Hydro-Québec case in the 1990s in the Supreme Court of Canada because it focused on toxic chemicals as a health issue and because the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment jointly administer this act. Therefore, it was seen as a legitimate exercise of federal jurisdiction.

Why would it be changed now? That would be thanks to the lobbying of the plastics industry, which did not like the idea that its products could be described as toxic. We know that, for many decades now, courts have understood the concept of “CEPA toxic”, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act's version of toxic. This means that in adequate amounts and sufficient quantities in the environment, something is a threat to the environment and human health. It does not mean that if someone picks up a piece of plastic, they are going to poison themselves. It means that the enormous amounts of plastics we dump into the environment are a threat to our environment on a planetary scale.

To help the plastics industry with a potential reputational public relations problem, this bill weakens the constitutional foundations of the act. I am unable to support a bill that takes any risk with the constitutional underpinnings of the act to help an industry out with a public relations problem.

There is also the elimination of key sections of the original CEPA. Actually, the virtual elimination piece came in later, after the first passage of the act in 1990, and so on. We have had a lot of improvements to this act over the years, but Bill S-5 is not one of them.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member down the way for her intervention and for coming to the environment committee to take part in some of our discussions.

Some of those discussions were centred around the Senate amendments. She mentioned clause 9, and I think proposed paragraph 46(1)(k.3) mentions the tailings ponds, which is included in our legislation. We are also including multiple chemicals from different sources that can add to the cumulative effects on vulnerable populations, which again would apply to situations such as we have in Kearl in the tailings ponds.

The bill as written, and amended by the committee, is now covering situations around tailings ponds, which can be detrimental to human health. Could the hon. member provide her thoughts on the watch-list we have created and the management of it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to start by saying that the member for Guelph thanked me for coming to the environment committee. I was coerced into being at the environment committee. I am not allowed to be a member of the committee. The motions passed in every committee in this place give me 48-hours notice to submit all my amendments to the committee for clause-by-clause, but I am not allowed to participate. I am not allowed to move my own amendments, so they are deemed to have been moved.

This is not an opportunity I have ever sought because, if not for the motions passed in every committee, I would have a right today, right now, to submit all of my amendments to the committee, argue them out and discuss them here at report stage. We would then have to vote on them. That is why Stephen Harper's PMO invented this motion, which every committee passes without thinking about the fact that the party in the House that has the least procedural fairness in the one right we have to put forward substantive amendments at report stage, had that right reduced because we knew how to use it.

The watch-list is a small improvement within an act that, overall, reduces the effectiveness of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in a way for which the only word I can use to describe it is tragic.