Laurel Collins

[Income Tax Act, November 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for his words in support of small businesses and in support of making the wealthiest pay their fair share.

Like the member, I have heard from countless small businesses that are struggling, for which the wage subsidy was a lifeline. Many are now facing having their doors shut forever. They cannot afford their rent, because they did not qualify for the flawed program put forward by the government.

This is a step in the right direction, but I am curious if the member agrees that these changes should be retroactive. Businesses that did not qualify for the rental subsidy, because their landlords did not participate, should get the same fair treatment as those businesses whose landlords participated before.

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to a few things the member said.

He mentioned a conversation I had with his sister on her doorstep. What I said in the conversation is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the Liberals' national housing strategy said that it left people in core housing need worse off. This is what we have seen from the Liberal government again and again. Yes, there are great promises in its throne speech, but when it comes to follow-through and delivery, people in my riding are still struggling.

There is a housing crisis. People are struggling to make ends meet and pay their bills. This is an opportunity for us to invest in a guaranteed livable income, which would make a huge difference for millions of people across the country.

Does the member not think the families, workers and small business owners who are struggling should not have to pay for these investments, and that they should be paid by the people who have profited off this pandemic? It should be the ultrawealthy, who can—

[Climate Change Accountability Act, November 4th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to be speaking in the House today in support of climate accountability legislation.

While the world has been reeling from the impacts of COVID-19, the climate crisis has not gone away. It poses an ever-increasing threat to our environment, our ecosystems, our food systems, the health of our families, the future and our children's future. It also threatens the economic well-being and health of our communities. I do not know if I can adequately communicate the fear and anxiety that young people have communicated to me about their future or that parents have expressed about what kind of world we are leaving to our children, but it is not just about the future. The impacts of climate change are already being felt in Canada, in the smoke from the climate fires, the fact that temperatures in Canada are increasing at twice the global rate and the impacts on permafrost. The impacts are felt particularly in the Arctic and along the coasts and are disproportionately felt by indigenous communities, rural communities and marginalized and racialized communities.

There is a broad scientific agreement that an increase in the global average surface temperature of 1.5 °C or more above pre-industrial levels would constitute dangerous climate change. Canadians want real action on the climate crisis, and they want a government to not just promise to fight climate change, but to actually deliver on that commitment. The Liberals have missed every single climate target, and we are not even on track to meet Stephen Harper's weak targets. In a fall 2019 report, the commissioner of the environment said there is no evidence to support the government's statement that its current or planned actions would allow Canada to meet its targets.

The list of Liberal commitments on environmental targets that the current government has missed or is on track to miss is long. We are not even close to being on track to meeting our targets of selling 100% zero-emissions vehicles by 2040. The government committed to plant two billion trees by 2030, and not a single dollar has been allocated to that target. The clean fuel standard, a key part of the pan-Canadian framework on climate change, has been delayed. I could go on, but in many ways, all of these are symptoms of a government that has not been accountable to its climate commitments. Climate accountability is needed. This bill focuses on our climate targets. Reporting on how we get to those targets should include how the government intends to meet all of these vital climate-related policies.

As has been mentioned, in 2008 the United Kingdom created a climate accountability framework, the Climate Change Act. This act was the first of its kind and remains very highly regarded. It has served as a model for legislation in other jurisdictions including Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain and New Zealand. The U.K. has set five carbon budgets, and regular reporting to Parliament has enhanced transparency and accountability. The U.K. has an expert advisory committee, the committee on climate change.

Two years before the U.K. implemented its bill, in 2006, the leader of the NDP at the time, Jack Layton, introduced the first climate change accountability act in Canada. This bill passed third reading by a vote of 148 to 116, with the Harper Conservatives voting against it, but Jack Layton's bill died in the Senate. The NDP has introduced the climate change accountability act as a private member's bill in the 39th, the 40th and the 41st Parliaments, by Jack and also by former MP, Megan Leslie.

In this Parliament, my NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, has put forward a bill, Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework, which would provide for the development and implementation of a climate emergency action framework. It explicitly outlines the need for an action framework ensuring the transition toward a green economy; increasing employment in green energy, infrastructure and housing; and ensuring economic well-being.

Importantly, it explicitly states that the climate emergency action framework, climate accountability legislation, must be built on a foundation that upholds the provisions in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The bill we are debating today, put forward by my Bloc colleague, is a really good start. It is headed in the right direction, but I see some gaps and some areas that need strengthening.

First, as outlined in the member for Winnipeg Centre's bill, Bill C-232, climate accountability legislation must be explicitly built on a foundation that recognizes the inherent indigenous right to self-government, that upholds the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and that takes into account scientific knowledge, including indigenous science and knowledge, as well as the responsibilities we have toward future generations.

I applaud, in Bill C-215, the inclusion of interim targets every five years, although 2045 seems to be missing, and applaud the requirement to outline the methods, measures and tools for measuring and assessing greenhouse gas reductions. However, the bill needs strengthening in relation to what these targets will be. It relies on the Paris Agreement, and we need to acknowledge that the Paris targets and net-zero by 2050 are not enough. Our greenhouse gas reduction targets need to be ambitious and consistent with Canada’s fair share contribution. They need to be strong targets that help us stay below a temperature increase of 1.5°C.

The last IPCC report is telling us that we need to at least cut our emissions in half by 2030, and the new targets need to reflect this. Yes, our targets need to be set into law, but we also need to include mechanisms so that they can be strengthened when the experts advise.

The next area that is in need of strengthening is accountability. We need experts involved not only in strengthening targets, but also in reporting and analyzing our progress. It is essential that these experts be at arm’s length, and their mandate needs to focus on climate accountability.

The NDP has pushed for an independent climate accountability office and the appointment of a climate accountability officer, who would undertake research and gather information and analysis on the target plan or revised target plan; prepare a report that includes findings and recommendations on the quality and completeness of the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analysis used to establish each target in the target plan; and advise on any other climate change and sustainable development matters that the officer would consider relevant to climate accountability.

Environmental advocates and organizations have also called for an independent arm’s-length expert climate advisory committee drawn up from all regions of the country, one that would specifically advise on long-term targets, the five-year carbon budgets and climate impact reports. These experts would also monitor and report on governmental progress toward achieving the short-term carbon budgets, long-term targets and adaptation plans, and would provide advice to the government on climate-related policy.

Another element that we need to look at is carbon budgets, both national and subnational.

While all these areas need attention, I believe they can be addressed in committee. It is essential that we move forward with climate accountability legislation immediately. We needed it back in 2006, when Jack Layton first put it forward. We needed it when each iteration of the IPCC report came out, outlining the catastrophic impacts of global warming. We needed it last year, when young people were marching in the streets begging politicians and decision-makers to listen to science. We need it now.

The Liberals promised climate accountability legislation in their election platform and again in the throne speech. In fact, in the most recent throne speech, they said that they would immediately bring forward a plan outlining how they are going to meet and exceed Canada’s 2030 emissions reduction goals. They also committed to legislating net-zero by 2050. That was back in September. I am not sure what the Liberal government's definition of “immediately” is, but it is now November and neither of these things have happened. If the Liberals vote against this bill, it will be another example of how they are content to make climate promises but are unwilling to take climate action. We need to remember that this is the government that declared a climate emergency one day and bought a pipeline the next.

I implore my fellow MPs to support this motion. I will be—

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, October 30th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this bill, which seeks to address the unacceptable practice of exporting waste to countries that do not have the infrastructure to deal with it, and to advocate for amendments at committee that would strengthen the bill.

We should never be sending our garbage to other countries. This bill focuses on plastic waste, which poses a serious threat to our environment and human health, but we must ensure that we stop all waste from being exported, including that which is designated as recyclable here but, in reality, is not able to be dealt with by the countries receiving these plastics and electronics. It is wrong to off-load the dangers of waste and plastic pollution to other countries.

Countries that have marginalized and racialized populations have been particularly hard hit by Canada’s lack of leadership on this issue. We are causing so much harm to human health, from the informal waste workers in these countries breathing in the fumes of burning plastics to the children picking through this waste to the communities that experience the effects of toxic pollution, communities that often do not have the capacity to deal with the waste. Also, the impacts on the environment and oceans have been severe.

Banning plastic waste exports is one important step, but we must also ban all waste exports and, most importantly, reduce the amount of plastic waste we produce to begin with by banning single-use plastics, implementing producer accountability and working toward a zero-waste Canada.

The people in my riding of Victoria care deeply about this issue of plastic waste, and so do many Canadians across the country. About 79% of Canadians believe we should manage and dispose of our own waste and recycling, but Canada’s record is an embarrassment. In 2018, Canada shipped more than 44,000 tonnes of plastic waste to other countries. In 2019, Canada spent more than $1.1 million to bring 69 containers of illegally shipped garbage back from the Philippines, only after the President of the Philippines threatened to declare war on Canada and cut off diplomatic ties if we did not. This year, the Malaysian government has sent 11 shipping containers of plastic garbage back to Canada.

The government has not been transparent about how much garbage is being returned from other nations or the cost of returning it. Since 2016, Canada has been part of an international treaty that requires permits to ship garbage to other countries that consider it a hazardous substance, but not a single permit has been issued since 2016, even though multiple shipments of Canadian garbage have been discovered in foreign ports in countries such as Malaysia and Cambodia.

When it comes to the Basel Convention, which regulates hazardous waste exports, Canada opposed the important Basel ban amendments that would ensure countries do not off-load their waste to countries in the global south. Luckily, it was ratified by enough other countries that showed leadership, but Canada then delayed ratifying and implementing this important amendment.

Why is Canada still shipping so much plastic waste to other countries?

The reality is that like many other wealthy countries, we actually have very limited ability to recycle plastics and have relied on foreign nations for decades. China used to be the world’s largest plastic waste importer, but it stopped accepting most imports in 2018 because of high levels of contamination and because the costs had grown to outweigh the benefits. Since then, Canada has had to try to find new places to send recyclables and waste.

There are very few markets here in Canada for the material. Only about a dozen companies recycle or burn plastic waste domestically. Much of the plastic waste has been shifted away from wealthier nations, which account for two-thirds of the global consumption of plastic material, to places like Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, the Philippines and Thailand, where governments are now facing a huge amount of both legal and illegal materials and are contemplating or implementing bans of their own. They are demanding that the world’s wealthiest nations stop using them as landfills.

It is clear that we need to stop exporting our waste, but we also need to stop producing so much waste. Canadians are among the biggest creators of waste in the world, at around two kilograms per person every day. Almost half the plastic waste produced in Canada is from packaging. Poor management of plastics across their life cycle and improper disposal have resulted in large amounts of plastic waste entering the environment as plastic pollution.

By the government’s own estimates, of the three million tonnes of plastic waste disposed of by Canadians every year only 9% is recycled. An estimated 29 kilotonnes of plastic waste are discarded outside of the normal waste stream, through direct release into the environment or through dumps or leaks.

Most Canadians are shocked when they learn how little of our plastic waste actually ends up being recycled. We need to ensure we can safely deal with our plastic waste here in Canada. Dealing with our waste does not just mean disposing or recycling it. It should also involve meeting waste reduction targets and working toward a zero-waste Canada. In order to do that, producer accountability when it comes to the production of plastics is crucial. Canada is beginning to make some progress on managing our plastic waste, but there is clearly still so much work to be done.

I would like to take a moment to recognize my NDP colleague from Courtenay—Alberni, who has been a champion on this issue. I also recognize former NDP MPs Murray Rankin, Nathan Cullen and Megan Leslie for their great work to reduce plastic waste and pollution.

It was only after months of pressure from the NDP in 2019 that the Liberals finally agreed to ban single-use plastics by 2021. The government recently released the list of items to be included in that ban: grocery checkout bags, straws, stir sticks, six-pack rings, plastic cutlery and food takeout containers made from hard-to-recycle plastics.

While this is a start, it still does not address the large chunk of plastic packaging and other plastic waste. While municipalities with overflowing landfills continue to grow, rather than wait for leadership from the Liberal government, many have moved ahead with their own measures to reduce plastic waste.

The City of Victoria has been a leader on this issue, implementing its own ban on single-use plastic bags. I want to give a shout-out to Surfrider, here in my community, an organization that spearheaded the “ban the bag” campaign but who also does important work in our community cleaning up ocean plastics.

Specifically, on the issue of exporting waste, the Liberals have been dragging their feet. They were previously dismissive of the idea of banning plastic waste exports entirely. Only after Australia planned to ban plastic waste exports in 2019, did the Liberals say they would look at what else Canada could do to reduce the amount of Canadian garbage that is ending up overseas.

The Liberals initially, as I mentioned, refused to sign on to the important amendments to the Basel Convention. Parties to the convention agreed by consensus to the amendments in 2019, but Canada continued to fight against these important amendments. When it was formally notified by the United Nations in March 2020 that Canada's laws would not be in compliance, the government asked for continuous delays.

Environmental scientists and anti-plastic waste advocates have criticized the gap between the government's efforts to present itself as a leader on plastic waste and its actions. Canada has continued to come under fire for continuing to send plastic waste to developing countries.

I support this bill to ban plastic waste exports. It is important, but it needs to be strengthened at committee and it is only one step. We should not be using other countries as landfills for any kind of waste. We need to do more to manage the problem of plastic waste. It poses a serious threat to our environment and our health, not only here in Canada but around the world. That means not just better management of waste, but working to reduce the amount we produce in the first place.

I would like to see stronger legislation on banning single-use plastics and producer accountability. We need federal leadership and a clear plan to get us to a zero-waste Canada.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, October 30th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for York—Simcoe for bringing forward this important issue. We should never be offloading our garbage to other countries that cannot deal with it. It is appalling to me that the government fought to continue this terrible practice.

One of the things advocates have flagged as a concern with the bill is that, as it is currently written, it leaves open loopholes that could allow Canada to only apply the ban to non-recyclable plastic waste, when we know the majority of the waste in plastic pollution being shipped overseas is deemed recyclable in Canada, but in reality, is not able to be dealt with by the countries receiving these plastics and electronics. We know that the government, for all its talk, fought against the Basel Convention and would use loopholes to continue this atrocious practice.

Is the member open to amending the bill to ensure it is, in fact, banning exports of all plastic waste, deemed recyclable or not, which is impacting human health and the environment in countries predominately in the global south that often do not have the infrastructure to handle it?

[Small Business, October 30th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, Logan's, a long-time live music venue in Victoria, announced this week that it had to shut its doors for good. Logan's was a beloved watering hole where people came together to talk politics, listen to live music and go to the Sunday Hootenanny. I have heard from countless small businesses just like Logan's that are struggling to stay open, and Victoria is facing the impending loss of many of the places that make our community what it is. Logan's will be missed. We need to support these small businesses.

Why are small businesses like Logan's still waiting on the government to give them the kind of help that would keep them afloat?

[Instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, October 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it is the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, October 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, this motion directs the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to undertake a comprehensive study on federal policies and legislation relating to fresh water, and we do need changes to our laws on fresh water.

Canada is facing new and intensifying water challenges and we need to modernize our approach to freshwater management along with Canada’s outdated federal freshwater legislation. However, the government has committed to the creation of a Canada water agency and it is aware of the most significant flaws in our waters laws. Therefore, it is important that this study not stop, pause or slow down the creation of the Canada water agency or the updating of the Canada Water Act.

There is no denying that the challenges we face when it comes to the protection and sustainability of our fresh water have changed drastically over the past few decades. This is why we need a new approach to freshwater management. If we want to ensure Canada’s waters are resilient to climate change, safe for human health and sustainable in the long term, we need to do this work.

We know that climate change is already impacting freshwater issues and the challenges are increasing in severity. However, climate change has also created new and complex issues, such as rising sea levels and increased severe weather systems. Addressing these challenges to our freshwater systems requires coordination and an integrated response at the federal level. Unfortunately our outdated federal water laws and policies failed to account for climate impacts both now and in the future.

In particular, water-based natural disasters like flooding and droughts, but also disasters like toxic algae blooms and climate fires, are increasing exponentially both in frequency and severity. This events cost governments billions of dollars, first in direct disaster assistance but also impact our economic revenue and indirectly cost billions more. Canada’s capacity to manage these events is severely hampered by a lack of data and reporting, a lack of national forecasting and prediction capacity and a failure to adequately incorporate climate change impacts.

I want to recognize my New Democrat colleague, the MP for London—Fanshawe, and her bill, Bill C-245, which calls for a freshwater strategy and also explicitly includes consultation with indigenous peoples. Indigenous water rights are inadequately recognized in our current water management systems.

We need to ensure that our policies are based on a new nation-to-nation governance paradigm, that our policies are consistent with the principles of reconciliation and that they are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We need to ensure that all our water laws recognize indigenous nations’ inherent rights to self-determination.

In addition to these issues, our water management capacity is also fragmented across over 20 different federal departments and this governance model impedes governments at all levels across the country and makes our shared water challenges even more challenging. On top of that, watersheds and river basins are composed of many overlapping jurisdictions. Local, provincial, indigenous and federal governments have at times lacked the capacity or the means to effectively work together. Transboundary watersheds and river basins shared by Canada and the U.S. are also in need of governance renewal.

The first step to addressing this is to establish a Canada water agency. While the Liberals have committed to this in the most recent throne speech, which is a positive sign, we have heard many environmental promises from the government before. What we really want to see is action. The government has missed every climate target it has set. It is even failing to meet Stephen Harper’s weak climate targets. It said that it would have a plan to meet our international climate commitments “immediately” after the throne speech. Over a month has passed and still no sign of the plan.

While I am glad the water agency was mentioned in the throne speech, with no timeline attached and with Liberals not moving forward on the things they said they would tackle immediately, like climate targets, I have to admit that I am skeptical the government will put action behind its words. The water agency is important and we should, at the very least, be getting started now. Its mandate and functions should be co-developed with indigenous nations. They should also be developed in close collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, local authorities, water organizations and the public.

Creating the Canada water agency is just the first step. There is a huge need for broader reforms, including in the Canada Water Act, and the agency would ideally be the foundation needed to start transforming the way water is managed.

The Canada Water Act, which urgently needs updating, is Canada’s primary federal freshwater legislation. It has not been adequately or significantly updated in decades. It does not currently reflect or adequately respond to the issues that I outlined, including the impacts of climate change and addressing indigenous water rights. The act also needs to address the evolving role that the private insurance industry plays in flood risk mitigation and damage reduction. I want to acknowledge the work of FLOW, an organization that has been fighting for these issues for a long time.

In the same way the water agency needs to be co-developed with indigenous peoples, updating the Canada Water Act should involve a legislative, consent-based co-drafting process with indigenous nations. This process needs to be rooted in nation-to-nation relationships. It has to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This motion, which instructs the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to review federal water policies, may help identify ways forward, but the study should not slow down the urgently needed work. There is no need to wait for the results of the study to begin updating the Canada Water Act.

Many organizations, like FLOW and others, have worked hard and identified comprehensive data on the gaps in our freshwater legislation and have identified ways forward. This important work will take time to co-develop with indigenous nations and other partners, and could and should start now.

One of the pieces mentioned in this motion is the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. In 2012, the Harper government's omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45, removed key legal protections from over 99% of Canada’s lakes and rivers. In 2015, the Liberals committed to reviewing the previous government's changes and to restore lost protections. Unfortunately, the amendments in the bill did not fully live up to the government's promise to restore lost protections of waterways. It restored some, and the restored legal protections are narrowly focused. They exclude environmental values and in some cases are substantially weaker than the pre-2012 version of the law. The consideration of environmental impacts of projects was not reinstated. However, despite these flaws, it does represent in general a positive step forward from the Harper era that decimated navigable water protections in Canada. I hope this motion can address some of the flaws that remain in this legislation.

I am passionate about this issue. Watershed protection is one of the things that got me involved in politics. I want to thank my sister, Georgia Collins, for her leadership when a contaminated soil dump was proposed at the head of the watershed that provided drinking water to her community of Shawnigan Lake. She helped mobilize her community and got me involved. It was being involved in that ultimately successful fight to stop the project that taught me about and sparked my passion for protecting fresh water, and taught me about the dangers that exist for Canada’s watersheds and river basins.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has just started its first study this week. It concerns me that this motion circumvented the regular process of choosing studies at the steering committee, and I initially worried that it might impede the work of the committee or that it could slow down the needed work on freshwater legislation. However, I want to thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his passion for freshwater protection and his willingness to work across party lines.

I have consulted with my colleague, the sponsor of Motion No. 34. I would like to move the following amendment. I hope he will accept it as a friendly amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting subsection (i) and by replacing “(ii) schedule no fewer than 10 meetings, (iii)” with the following: “(i) schedule no fewer than seven meetings, (ii)”.

[Instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, October 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and his advocacy for freshwater.

We urgently need updates to our freshwater policies and legislation, but we also need to make sure our policies are based on a new nation-to-nation governance paradigm that is consistent with the principles of reconciliation and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The member mentioned the tragedy of continued boil water advisories in indigenous communities. It is important to note that the Neskantaga First Nation has not had access to clean drinking water for 25 years. It had to be evacuated during the pandemic, because it does not have running water. The government is responsible, and must act now.

When it comes to this bill and the creation of a Canada water agency, its mandate and functions should be co-developed with indigenous nations. That work takes time and should start immediately.

Does the member agree that the water agency should be co-developed with indigenous nations, that it should start now, and that the committee study should complement but in no way slow down, pause or put the creation of the agency on hold?

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the member called this a touchy issue and gave examples of people he had spoken to who oppose it. However, 300,000 people responded to the survey about this issue and a large majority, 86% of Canadians, support the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter v. Canada, which recognizes medical assistance in dying as a right. Seven in 10 Canadians, 71%, support in some way the removing of the reasonably foreseeable requirement from the assisted dying legislation. Most Canadians know someone who has been affected by intolerable suffering at the end of their life. This bill would provide dignity to those who would not otherwise have it.

When the member talks about slowing down the legislation, how does he respond to people who do not have the time or who would live out their last days in intolerable pain?