John Aldag

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, October 7th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for all of her work, over a lifetime, on environmental issues, including on CEPA. She has been a mentor and a friend to me, and I look forward to working with her on possible amendments for this legislation.

To the point on the right to a healthy environment, as I commented in my notes, this is the first time that government legislation has included this type of right within its preamble. Can more be done? Absolutely, but I think that this is a really strong point for legislation to start. We do have other pieces of legislation to expand on it, as we have heard from our NDP colleague, but I think that now is the time to look at how we can further strengthen the right to a healthy environment within the discussions and amendments that we are bringing before the House at this time.

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, October 7th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and good friend, the member for Winnipeg South, for sharing his time today. I also thank members of the House for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning.

I am really pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill S-5, strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act, particularly to government proposals and Senate amendments relating to a right to a healthy environment in the bill.

Before I get into the substance of our proposal and the Senate amendments, I would like to remind the House that it has taken decades of work to get to where we are today. Discussions relating to a right to a healthy environment have been taking place domestically for many years, with many Canadians, civil society organizations and indigenous leaders advocating for a recognition of a right to a healthy environment at the federal level. There have also been discussions with industry associations supporting recognition in the preamble of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, as it is commonly called.

I would also like to acknowledge the important contribution of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to these discussions. It is a committee that I was part of and that recognized the need to update the CEPA legislation. I would like to recognize the work of the committee under then chair Deb Schulte, and colleagues Will Amos and Mike Bossio, who also played key leadership roles in this study.

In 2017, our committee called on the federal government to strengthen CEPA to provide greater protection to human and environmental health from toxic substances and unanimously recommended, among other things, that the preamble of CEPA be amended to explicitly “recognize a right to a healthy environment”. I commend our committee for the insights and ideas put forth over the years to enhance the protection of the environment and human health for present and future generations of Canadians. All those efforts brought us to this point today.

The government is proposing to strengthen the protection of all Canadians and the environment from pollution and harmful substances through the amendments proposed in Bill S-5. To that end, the government has proposed to recognize in the preamble of CEPA that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under the act. This is the first time that this right has been proposed for inclusion in a federal statute in Canada. This is huge.

Recognition of a right to a healthy environment under CEPA is a significant milestone in and of itself. However, the government is doing more to elaborate on this right and its implementation for the purposes of the act. The red chamber made amendments to this part of the bill, as members know, and I look forward to building further on those amendments.

The bill, as amended by the Senate, would include specific requirements of the government with respect to a healthy environment under the act. First is a duty on the government to protect that right when administering the act, subject to any reasonable limits. Second is a requirement to develop an implementation framework to set out how that right would be considered in the administration of the act. Among other things, the framework must include consideration of the principles of environmental justice, the idea of avoiding adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations; non-regression, the idea of continuous improvement in environmental protection; and intergenerational equity, the idea of meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. These provisions would mark the first time that the federal government has introduced legislation requiring that it elaborate on the consideration of the principles of environmental justice and non-regression in the administration of an act.

The framework must also elaborate on the reasonable limits to which that right is subject, resulting from the consideration of relevant factors, including social, health, scientific and economic factors. The consideration of factors reflects the fact that no right is absolute, but it must be meaningful and considered in context.

Moreover, the bill would require that the implementation framework on the right to a healthy environment be developed within two years of the amendments coming into force. This would ensure that our commitment to implement this right is delivered on a timely basis while, at the same time, allowing for meaningful input and engagement from all parts of Canadian society, including indigenous groups, civil society organizations and industry. As transparency is key to fostering dialogue and moving forward on environmental protection, the implementation framework would also be published, so it would be available to all Canadians, and it would be reported on to Parliament annually.

The implementation framework is expected to set a path for a progressive implementation of a right to a healthy environment under CEPA and to evolve over time, based on the views of Canadians and the experience gained by the government. It is expected to provide relevant and persuasive guidance to officials to inform the decision-making processes under the act, and is part of interpreting and applying the act.

Third, this bill contains a requirement to conduct research, with studies or monitoring, to support the government in protecting this right. This is intended to ensure the government and future governments can make decisions about how to protect this right based on scientific evidence. This requirement must contribute to efforts to address environmental justice issues. For example, it should involve the collection and analysis of data to identify and monitor populations and communities that are particularly vulnerable to environmental and health risks from toxic substances and the cumulative effects of such substances. In turn, this could lead to new thinking on how to better protect such populations.

These requirements would allow for meaningful recognition, with the opportunity for Canadians to have input into how this right would be considered in CEPA and the path toward its progressive implementation. Applying the lens of a right to a healthy environment to the administration of CEPA is expected to encourage new thinking about how to protect populations that are particularly vulnerable to environmental and health risks and provide continued support for strong environmental and health standards, now and in the future.

In addition to these new provisions on a right to a healthy environment under CEPA, there would be a number of complementary changes to the act to assist in addressing environmental justice issues in Canada.

Certain populations and communities face greater exposure to harmful substances and combinations of substances. They are in areas of concentrated pollution, sometimes referred to as pollution hot spots. Under the bill to amend CEPA, decisions under CEPA would need to consider vulnerable populations, groups of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances. In addition, our duty to make decisions and exercise powers under CEPA would expressly include protecting the health of vulnerable populations. This would be done, in part, through consideration of available information regarding vulnerable populations in risk assessments.

The Minister of Health would be required to conduct biomonitoring surveys, specifically in relation to the health effects of substances. These biomonitoring surveys could focus on vulnerable populations. These new research requirements are intended to be complementary to the research requirements related to a right to a healthy environment, and the data and information they generate might lead to new thinking on how to better protect all Canadians from pollution and substances. These new research requirements are also expected to contribute to our efforts to better understand real life exposure, including exposures in vulnerable populations, and would assist in providing environmental and health protection for all.

Finally, the preamble of CEPA would confirm the government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This aligns with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which received royal assent on June 21, 2021, and which provides a framework to advance implementation of the declaration at the federal level.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not only revealed, but has also further exacerbated, social, health and economic disparities for indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and other racialized and religious minority Canadians and their communities. We cannot delay efforts to make Canada more just, more inclusive and more resilient. We see these proposals as one of the means to combat inequities in environmental protection in Canada, such as the increased health risks of more vulnerable members of society that can result from the exposure to substances and the cumulative effects from a combination of substances.

These proposals would help advance discussions so that the vulnerability and the impacts of real life exposure are taken into account in environmental and health protection under the act. As the bill moves through the House, we are committed to engaging with colleagues in the days and weeks to come to move forward in support of strong environmental and health standards now and into the future.

I must point out that Bill S-5 would be a strong start to updating CEPA. The Senate amendments are strong and must be accepted. However, I believe further amendments, which I hope to see seriously considered at committee, are in order. I recognize CEPA is complex legislation. It would be difficult to update in one effort. I would like to see updates addressing marine dumping, establishing air quality standards and implementing stronger citizen action. If these issues could be addressed, the legislation would be further strengthened, either now or in the future.

Bill S-5 would go a long way to updating CEPA. More can be done, both now and in the future. I encourage all MPs to ensure we leave a positive legislative legacy as we update CEPA for the first time in more than 20 years. I look forward to thoughtful debate, the strengthening of amendments and a timely passage of this important legislation.

[Indigenous Affairs, September 29th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, on September 23, the National Summit on Indigenous Mental Wellness, a first-of-its-kind event, brought together hundreds of participants to share best practices to support first nations, Inuit and Métis mental wellness.

Could the Minister of Indigenous Services update the House on the outcomes of this important summit?

[Committees of the House, September 28th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented on Monday, June 20, be modified to append the dissenting opinion of the Bloc Québécois.

[Paul David Wynn and Steven Furness, September 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, on the morning of July 25, residents in our community awoke to an emergency alert. It was only the second time it has been used in British Columbia. This alert was the result of a series of targeted shootings that occurred throughout the night of July 25 in parts of the Langleys.

This tragic event left two people dead and two people injured. My heart goes out to the family and friends of Paul David Wynn and Steven Furness, who were killed in these senseless shootings. Our community continues to mourn the loss of these two individuals, who were sons, brothers and friends to many.

These shootings highlighted the ongoing danger the vulnerable and homeless population faces. When one person is forced to live on the streets, we are all diminished. Homelessness is a reality for too many Canadians and a challenge for every Canadian community. We must continue to work together with all levels of government, NGOs, indigenous partners and communities across Canada to increase support for vulnerable groups.

Through the Reaching Home strategy, I am pleased that many organizations in my community have received support for these vulnerable populations, but more work must be done. Only by working together can we end chronic homelessness for all Canadians.

[Committees of the House, June 20th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “A Study of Methane Reduction Plans: Emissions Reduction Fund Onshore Program Review”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[International Mother Language Day Act, June 14th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, my work to pass International Mother Language Day dates back to the 42nd Parliament. At the time, I brought Senator Jaffer's bill to the House. It was reintroduced in the 43rd, and now the 44th, Parliament. The meaning behind International Mother Language Day is rooted in Canadian multiculturalism and openness and diversity. It is also an empowerment of our indigenous languages and a loud symbol of acceptance, internationally, during a dark time in world history. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Jaffer, for her commitment to the bill, as well as my colleagues for Fleetwood—Port Kells, Beaches—East York and Surrey—Newton for their continued support for the bill.

If the bill passes, it will establish International Mother Language Day, a day that promotes the preservation and protection of all languages used by peoples of the world on February 21. If this had been in effect this year, it would have been just three days before Russia invaded Ukraine, partially based on the false pretext that the Ukrainian language and its people are pseudo-Russian.

We, as Canadian parliamentarians, have a duty to protect and preserve Canadian values, including multiculturalism. Ukrainians and peoples around the world have had to fight to keep their languages from imperial, jingoist and colonial powers. We have always stood up for minority groups around the world, and that is why we see so many people immigrate here. They know we offer a safe country for them. Establishing this day is yet another reinforcement of this multiculturalism.

We are not perfect, though. I just mentioned that peoples have had to fight colonial powers from taking their languages from them. That has happened here in Canada up until very recently and, even now, indigenous communities and individuals are struggling to restore the knowledge and languages lost.

International Mother Language Day promotes not only international languages but the more than 60 indigenous languages from within Canada that are not officially recognized. While this is not an official call to action, it should be seen as a small but important step on our path towards truth and reconciliation.

To my Bloc colleagues, this bill would fully and explicitly recognize that English and French remain Canada's only official languages, and this would not change. Rather, it would promote the preservation of all languages.

I know the Bloc and Quebec are adamant allies of peoples around the world seeking the right to exist as unique, distinct nations with their own languages. This day epitomizes those values. Whether it is the Ukrainian language, Catalan or any other language, the Bloc and Quebec have also stood up for people's right to speak their own language. I ask you to support this bill today for the same reason.

I would like to add that asking for support for this day is not novel. The city of Surrey, which is part of my riding, already recognizes International Mother Language Day and so does the province of British Columbia. Canada would be the first country to do so. We never shied away from standing up for those without voices before, so why stop now? It is beyond time to recognize this day.

If the symbolism in Ukraine, multiculturalism groups, promoting indigenous languages, protection of minority languages or established precedent have yet to convince some of my colleagues, perhaps a story from one of my constituents will.

The late Rafiqul Islam and Abdus Salam, constituents from Surrey, immigrated to Canada from Bangladesh. Abdus is still a constituent of my riding in Cloverdale—Langley City. This issue is dear to Abdus's heart, and was to Rafiqul's, as Bengali speakers. Both have been fully aware of what it means to not be allowed to speak their mother language and of the pain that came with fighting for the right to speak it by their elders, dating back to 1952 in what was then East Pakistan.

They had lived in Bangladesh during a time when Bengali was not officially recognized, and people would be discriminated against if they did speak it. The identity of a people was in question.

After Britain left the Indian subcontinent in 1947, dividing it into India and Pakistan, the West Pakistani ruling class declared from the outset of the new country that only Urdu would be the official state language of Pakistan. English was to be taught and recognized as a second language. Bengali, the dominant language spoken by 54% of the total population of Pakistan, was excluded.

This threatened to sideline Bengali speakers from involvement in politics. It limited their ability to succeed in all spheres, including practising their own rich language and culture. It was another example of how colonial rule led languages and peoples to be oppressed.

These discriminatory laws soon came under pressure from Bengali speakers to be changed. This was led by student protests that called for the government to include Bengali as one of the official languages.

On the 21st day of February, 1952, in the streets of Dhaka, while people were protesting and demonstrating for the right to establish Bengali as one of the official languages of Pakistan, the police opened fire on this unarmed protest. This killed at least five students on the spot and injured several more. Some were later known to have died in the hospital.

The deaths of these students and student protesters sparked national unrest and eventually the central government relented and granted official status to the Bengali language in 1956, along with Urdu, in the Pakistan constitution of 1956.

This language movement had a major cultural impact on Bengali society. It inspired the development and celebration of the Bengali language, literature and culture. February 21, celebrated as Language Movement Day, is a major national holiday in Bangladesh. While Bengalis had to fight for this, Canada now takes this for granted.

This also impacted Rafiqul and Abdus when they arrived in Vancouver as immigrants. They saw that Canada is a land where all kinds of different nationalities have come together. Along with the indigenous-rich culture, it was a mosaic of inherent beauty and strength among people, but they also realized that many small languages were dying away. These two men formed an organization named Mother Language Lovers of the World and brought in eight other people from different linguistic backgrounds.

Apart from these two Bengali speakers, there were two English-, two Filipino-, one German-, one Cantonese Chinese-, one Hindi- and one Kutchi-speaking individuals. They petitioned first to the UN and then UNESCO in early 1998 and, through various processes and protocols of UNESCO, finally International Mother Language Day was declared unanimously on November 17, 1999. The inherent beauty and unique mutual respect hidden in this for all languages and cultures was recognized by the world at UNESCO's 30th general conference. It was a big victory for all the mother languages of the world. Since 2000, the world observes International Mother Language Day on February 21.

We should recognize International Mother Language Day in solidarity for those who did not and still do not have the ability to freely speak their own language. We should recognize it in support of Ukraine today. We should recognize it because it represents our multicultural roots. We should recognize it because it promotes indigenous languages. We should recognize it because it highlights the need for protection of minority languages.

Today, I ask all my colleagues to join me in recognizing International Mother Language Day. In doing so, Canada can be a beacon for the rest of the world to follow in this peaceful gesture.

I have appreciated the opportunity to speak to this bill.

[Indigenous Affairs, June 7th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, in the 42nd Parliament, I introduced Bill C-374, an act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. That bill responded directly to call to action 79, which calls for the development of “a reconciliation framework for Canadian heritage and commemoration”. It would also help to promote recognition and understanding of the history of indigenous peoples, including their significant ongoing contributions to Canada. This ensures representation for indigenous peoples on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

Could the Minister of Environment and Climate Change tell the House how we are advancing on call to action 79?

[Rail Transportation, June 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, our country's rail transportation system connects communities and keeps our supply chains running. However, accidents still happen that unfortunately result in injuries and even fatalities.

Can the Minister of Transport update the House on what our government is doing to protect Canadians and keep our rail system safe?

[Committees of the House, May 30th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Main Estimates 2022-23: Vote 1 under Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Vote 1 under Canadian Energy Regulator, Vote 1 under Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Votes 1, 5 and 10 under Department of Natural Resources and Vote 1 under Northern Pipeline Agency".