Bill S-5

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

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

This enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) recognize that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under that Act;
(b) provide that the Government of Canada must protect that right as provided under that Act, and, in doing so, may balance that right with relevant factors;
(c) require the development of an implementation framework that sets out how that right will be considered in the administration of that Act, and require that research, studies or monitoring activities be conducted to support the Government of Canada in protecting that right;
(d) authorize the Minister of the Environment to add to the Domestic Substances List certain substances that were in commerce in Canada and subject to the Food and Drugs Act between January 1, 1987 and September 13, 2001, and provide that any substance may be deleted from the List when it is no longer in commerce in Canada;
(e) require that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health develop a plan that specifies the substances to which those Ministers are satisfied priority should be given in assessing whether they are toxic or capable of becoming toxic;
(f) provide that any person may request that those Ministers assess a substance;
(g) require the Minister of the Environment to compile a list of substances that that Minister and the Minister of Health have reason to suspect are capable of becoming toxic or that have been determined to be capable of becoming toxic;
(h) require that, when those Ministers conduct or interpret the results of certain assessments — or conduct or interpret the results of a review of decisions of certain governments — in order to determine whether a substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic, they consider available information on whether there is a vulnerable population in relation to the substance and on the cumulative effects that may result from exposure to the substance in combination with exposure to other substances;
(i) provide that certain substances be classified as substances that pose the highest risk based on, among other things, their properties or characteristics;
(j) require that those Ministers give priority to the total, partial or conditional prohibition of activities in relation to toxic substances that are specified in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 , or to the total, partial or conditional prohibition of releases of those substances into the environment, when regulations or instruments respecting preventive or control actions in relation to those substances are developed;
(k) expand certain regulation-making, information-gathering and pollution prevention powers under that Act, including by adding a reference to products that may release substances into the environment;
(l) allow the risks associated with certain toxic substances to be managed by preventive or control actions taken under any other Act of Parliament, and the obligations under sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to be the responsibility of whoever of the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Health is best placed to fulfil them;
(m) expand the powers of the Minister of the Environment to vary either the contents of a significant new activity notice with respect to a substance not on the Domestic Substances List or the contents of the List itself with respect to a substance on the List that is subject to the significant new activities provisions of that Act;
(n) extend the requirement, to notify persons of the obligation to comply with the significant new activity provisions of that Act when a substance that is subject to those provisions is transferred to them, so that it applies with respect to substances on the Domestic Substances List, and authorize that Minister to limit by class the persons who are required to be notified of the obligation when a substance that is subject to those provisions is transferred to them; and
(o) require that confidentiality requests made under section 313 of the Act be accompanied by reasons, and to allow the Minister of the Environment to disclose the explicit chemical or biological name of a substance or the explicit biological name of a living organism in certain circumstances.
The enactment also makes related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act to enable the assessment and management of risks to the environment associated with foods, drugs, cosmetics and devices by, among other things,
(a) prohibiting persons from conducting certain activities in respect of a drug unless the Minister of Health has conducted an assessment of the risks to the environment presented by certain substances contained in that drug;
(b) enabling the Minister of Health to take measures in respect of the risks to the environment that a drug may present throughout its life cycle; and
(c) providing the Governor in Council with supporting regulation-making authorities.
Finally, the enactment repeals the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act .

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I see that the committee is here in full force to talk about Bill S‑5.

I have to say one thing. I do not share the committee chair's enthusiasm for the passage of Bill S‑5 or the great progress it could bring about.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill, but without much enthusiasm. In our opinion, this bill makes only a small step, not great strides.

The Senate made some worthwhile amendments, but the government and the official opposition did not support them.

I know that my colleague does not share my assessment of the work that has been done. The Bloc Québécois is of the opinion that we missed an opportunity to do a lot more for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House for the second time to speak to Bill S‑5. I was also very pleased to chair the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development when we studied and amended this bill.

Members may not know that, in 1999, I was the assistant to a member who sat on the environment committee. I was therefore quite familiar with the process of the first round of amendments made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This is a bit of déjà vu, but I see that we have made some progress with Bill S‑5.

I would like to start by talking about tailing ponds. As we know, these are large artificial lakes that are found in the oil sands region and were built by the oil sands industry in the Athabasca River basin in northern Alberta.

Everything having to do with water in that region, including the tailing ponds, is something I have long been interested in. In 2009, I launched a study at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. At the time, I was a member along with the Prime Minister, who had just been elected as an MP. There was another member with us, the member for Ottawa South. We were in the opposition and we managed to convince the other opposition members at the committee, because it was a minority government, to adopt the motion to conduct a study. We had to work with the other opposition parties to get permission from the committee before we could embark on a study. We studied the impact of the oil sands industry on aquatic ecosystems in the Athabasca River basin.

We did this work somewhat in collaboration with the late David Schindler, who was one of the greatest experts in the world on aquatic ecosystems. At the time, he was conducting research into this topic.

The committee was chaired by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who is directly in front of me in the House. He is not listening to me right now, but he was the chair of the committee.

Up to that point, it was claimed that there were pollutants and bitumen in the Athabasca River, but that it was normal, that it had always been like that, and that explorers had found bitumen in the river 200 years ago. However, David Schindler conducted a study to prove that the bitumen was coming from the oil sands industry through toxins released into the atmosphere. When it rained, those toxins in the air were falling into the river and polluting it.

Why am I mentioning that? The reason is that, while we were studying Bill S‑5 in committee or shortly thereafter, Imperial Oil's Kearl project experienced a tailings leak. We have invited the company and members of neighbouring first nations to appear before the committee to discuss the issue. We are going to have further discussions on the subject shortly.

In a way, as far as I am concerned, we are coming full circle because the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's study dates back to around 2009-10.

Why did I mention tailings ponds? It is because the Senate added tailings ponds to Bill S‑5 before it was sent to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We discussed that amendment at great length in committee and it attracted media attention.

All of a sudden, the media was reporting that Bill S-5 was being studied. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc Québécois, I believe, wanted to keep a reference that the Senate had put in the bill regarding tailings ponds.

I am pretty agnostic on whether the reference to tailings ponds should stay in the bill, but the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development decided to remove the reference.

I am quite agnostic about whether we mention tailings ponds in CEPA. However, I know that the Senate amendment, which we reversed in committee, garnered a lot of attention because we were studying the bill at the same time the Kearl tailings pond leak occurred.

As I said, I am agnostic, as such a mention would be nice, especially in the context of what has happened at the Kearl site, but it would add nothing to the powers of the federal government. The federal government already has a fair amount of power with tailings ponds. I do not mind if it is put back in, but my only fear and concern is that, if we had not taken out that reference, and if we get specific in the language in CEPA around tailings ponds, we could be detracting from the generality of some provisions that relate to pollution.

The government already has the power under CEPA to compel information about substances and activities for purposes such as conducting research, creating an inventory, or formulating objectives and codes of practice, which is in subsection 46(1) of CEPA, which reads:

The Minister may, for the purpose of conducting research, creating an inventory of data, formulating objectives and codes of practice, issuing guidelines or assessing or reporting on the state of the environment, publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister considers appropriate a notice requiring any person described in the notice to provide the Minister with any information that may be in the possession of that person or to which the person may reasonably be expected to have access, including information regarding the following:

(a) substances on the Priority Substances List;

Then there is a whole list of areas before it continues with paragraph 46(1)(f), which reads, “substances that may cause or contribute to international or interprovincial pollution of fresh water, salt water or the atmosphere”. This would include what is going on in the oil sands industry and could include tailings ponds.

Further down in the list, paragraph 46(1)(k) reads, “the release of substances into the environment at any stage of their life-cycle”.

Under CEPA, the government can request information about tailings ponds, what is in tailings ponds and how tailings ponds are reacting. However, the government, just to give a little added heft to the bill, added proposed paragraph 46(1)(k.1): “activities that may contribute to pollution”. Therefore, we are really creating a wide net here to capture any kind of activity, but the law, as it is, captures tailings ponds and gives the federal government the right and the power to oversee these large structures.

As I said, I would not mind if it were put back in, but I do not think it is necessary. I do not think the committee erred by removing the specific references to tailings ponds and to hydraulic fracturing, which were added by the Senate when the bill was first studied there.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-5, the bill to amend CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It has been in the current Parliament for far too long. It was amended in the Senate, and then we brought it back to the House of Commons; we amended it further so that it actually worked. The amendments in the Senate, in my opinion, made it a somewhat dysfunctional bill.

At the end of the day, I was happy that my colleagues from all parties got together and went through this in detail. I thank all the bureaucrats who helped us in that respect, because we had all kinds of technical questions. We recognize what we are doing here. We are parliamentarians who have backgrounds in all kinds of areas, and we are taking a look at environmental protection legislation. There is a lot of science in this, and we are turning that into legislation that lawyers are going to have to interpret so that we can actually get some results for Canadians. Thus, we can make sure they have the protection they need and that people abiding by the law have clarity about how the law affects them. This was an interesting bill to work on, and I thank all the people on all sides of the House and in the federal government who were actually helpful in moving it to this point.

Environmental protection is a core Canadian value. Canada has some of the most robust environmental protection laws in the world, yet to keep them robust, accurate and current, they have to be updated periodically. This is the intent behind Bill S-5, which seeks to significantly update and modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for the first time since it was passed in 1999. As my colleague iterated, this was 24 years ago.

Bill S-5 would do many things. It would recognize that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment; that right may be balanced with social, economic, health and scientific factors. It would require the Government of Canada to protect this right, which is something that we strongly support.

The bill would put language into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to highlight the government's commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It would distinguish between, on the one hand, regulated toxic substances that pose the highest risks to health and the environment and, on the other hand, those that have a lower risk but should still be regulated. It also recognizes the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing the toxicity of a substance, as well as the importance of minimizing risks posed by exposure to such toxic substances.

The nub of what we debated ad nauseam at committee was the whole issue around the two lists, because there are now two lists, of toxic substances. We wanted to make sure that we got this right. There are thousands of so-called toxic substances in Canada. Canadians would be bewildered to find that the plastic they use in their kitchen is considered a toxic substance. This delineation of lists is to make sure that the actual toxic substances that need to be regulated, monitored and reduced in the environment, and some completely done away with, are listed on one scale; those that are used for other purposes, as long as they are used effectively, are on a lower scale. That is effectively the major change we looked at here in making sure that we are addressing getting rid of the real toxic substances and getting them out of the environment for Canadians.

In more pragmatic terms, the bill would give the government the proper tools to regulate such substances to protect people's health while considering all the necessary factors. This would include a plan of chemicals management priorities that assesses substances and involves consultation with stakeholders and affected groups. It would also remove redundancy in regulations by mandating that only one federal government department would regulate the same chemical substance and that the most appropriate department be the one to do so.

The next part is key. This bill is supported by virtually all stakeholders, and the essence of what it would do is to reduce red tape in many ways. As a matter of experience, I know that cumbersome and outdated regulatory requirements greatly hinder the ability of Canadian businesses to deliver goods and services to Canadians. One process that we look at here is the whole single assessment regime to assess both the environmental risks and health risks of drugs. Now, it would be the Minister of Health who looks at both of those, as opposed to the two regimes that it had to go through before. Now it would go through one process in the federal government.

The bill responds to 35 recommendations that were put forward here and finalized in a 2018 report to Parliament. Bill S-5 would ease the bureaucratic burden on our economy without compromising on Canada's strong commitment to protecting its environment, which is something we strongly support.

When it was received by the House, this bill suffered from many flaws. For instance, it contained unclear language surrounding the right to a healthy environment. It tampered with the agreed-upon definition of the “precautionary principle”, which is an internationally recognized concept. It introduced new terms that are not clearly defined and would have caused uncertainty with regard to their enforcement.

I have heard some of my colleagues' debate. My colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country talked about 15,000 deaths a year as a result of combustion in the air. Combustion in the air has always been a problem, but we try to square that in society with why our life expectancy keeps going up if 15,000 people are perishing because of combustion in the air.

We know that, when we burn things, including trees and fields, that combustion going into our lungs has an effect and affects our lives at the end of the day. However, we have consistently gotten better in this throughout the world, primarily in Canada, where we have been dealing with it for a long time. This repetition of one-sided narratives does not move the proper debate forward. I will say that again: This repetition of misinformation does not move the actual debate forward on how we solve problems in Canada.

We need to recognize that it takes time for stakeholders to agree on a common understanding of new terms. It is not as simple as looking up definitions in the dictionary. Legal interpretations are more diverse as we go through this process. It is important, in Parliament, to make sure we define what we mean with each of these terms. That is one of the weaknesses I have seen in many of these legislative proposals that have come forward. They leave it open for the courts to interpret these terms going forward, as opposed to us, as parliamentarians, giving them that definition of what we are talking about before we actually make the legislation.

I know I had some support on that from some of my colleagues in other parties, and I really appreciate that. It is also important to understand that regulatory uncertainty is detrimental to all parties involved. Like red tape, it greatly hinders the ability of Canadian businesses to deliver goods and services to Canadians. Thankfully, my colleagues on the environment committee and I worked collaboratively to address those issues to produce the version of Bill S-5 that we are now discussing today, a version that I believe all parties in this House can agree upon.

Unfortunately, the government acted in total disregard of the work done by this committee by introducing changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in its most recent budget implementation act. I will go through that. For reasons that are not clear, the budget implementation act introduced an account referred to as the “environmental economic instruments fund”, as well as playing with semantics by replacing references to “tradeable units” with “compliance units”. If I did not know any better, I would dismiss this as a mere change in bureaucratic arrangements and terminology, but my two-decade-long career in the financial sector has taught me much better. It is apparent to me that the new fund established in this amendment is being set up as a credit-trading mechanism for carbon offsets, to be overseen and distributed by the Minister of Environment.

Changing terminology throughout the act is an attempt to get around jurisprudence on jurisdictional oversight. It is currently understood that “tradeable units” would be under provincial jurisdiction. The alternative use of the term “compliance units” would circumvent that optically, but function in the exact same way. For instance, Alberta's technology innovation and emissions reduction pricing for carbon could be usurped by the federal Minister of Environment with this change. I will note that the TIER program in Alberta is the first and best output-based pricing system in Canada; it has reduced carbon more significantly than any other province or any other industry in Canada as a result of its efficiency.

In short, this change to CEPA allows the federal government unilateral authority across jurisdictions. This is not in the bill amendment we have but in the budget implementation act. Therefore, it is trying to slide in with an omnibus bill along with something that has nothing to do with CEPA. Our provincial governments are going to be aware of this, and the new language is a change meant to usurp their regulatory authority.

Is the country going to see more challenges to federal jurisdictional overstepping as a result of this? This is something that will be before the Supreme Court of Canada. I am cautioning that this is not the right step forward. We should pass this bill and move forward quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned at the very end the things we need to fix about this bill that were considered out of scope, and I assume that is why they were not fixed in this iteration of the bill. However, Bill S-5 was introduced as a different bill in a previous Parliament. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has never been enforceable. People knew that. One would think this would have been the first thing to be tackled by the government when it was fixing this bill after 24 years.

I am just wondering why that did not occur to the government and why we now have to have another piece of legislation. I agree with him that we need it done as quickly as possible to make this bill enforceable. What is the point of having environmental protection if it is not enforceable?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member and our committee going through all of the amendments we had to go through on Bill S-5 together. I note that he proposed some of the amendments that he brought forward at the committee. They were roundly voted down by all parties at the committee. Sometimes he had some support in some parties and sometimes he did not. However, he is going to make the perfect the enemy of the good by saying we need to do this.

This last piece of CEPA reform took 20 years, and now he is saying the minute we pass this bill, we are going to start on the new one right away. Is he proposing that his perfect is going to be taking another 20 years before it is brought into force, or would he find a different way to move it through the House?

The House resumed 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, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, after having had the pleasure of working on it for over 15 meetings on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is Canada’s most important environmental law. CEPA is focused on preventing pollution, managing toxic substances, and protecting the environment and human health. The powers created by CEPA are firmly recognized as a valid exercise of the federal government’s criminal law power. It not only protects us from harmful chemicals, but is also the instrument that was utilized to ban certain single-use plastic items.

CEPA also has a key function in the management of greenhouse gases. The regulation-making authority under CEPA allows the federal government to control the fuel efficiency standards for light duty vehicles and the methane emissions from oil and gas. It will also be the tool used for the forthcoming zero-emissions vehicle mandate, the clean electricity standard and, perhaps, the cap on emissions from oil and gas.

Members can see why this is an important law, but it has not been updated for almost 24 years. The Harper government did not bother to review or update it over the course of the Conservatives' mandate, but it is obvious that much has changed over this period, and our knowledge of chemicals and the environment had greatly progressed. This much was affirmed through the extensive study that was done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development from 2016 to 2017. Many of the recommendations in this report were incorporated into legislation, which was first tabled before the 2021 election and now again in Bill S-5.

I want to thank the members of that committee, including my former colleague, Will Amos, who did important work to get us where we are. I also want to thank the many individuals who have worked on this over the years, including organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, and Canada’s own UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, Dr. David Boyd. It is quite a marvel that both industry and environmental NGOs agreed on the overall framework of this bill and signed a letter to that effect before it was tabled last year.

Bill S-5 is an extremely technical bill, and so I will not get into all of the intricacies of it, but I do want to mention a few highlights.

Bill S-5 would make several major advancements, including, for the first time ever, recognizing a right to a healthy environment in Canadian law. Many of my own constituents, including Lisa Brasso, have been advocating for this right for some time through the Blue Dot campaign, where I was an early signatory during the 2019 election campaign. Since Bill S-5 was tabled, we strengthened this right at committee such that the right will no longer need to balanced against other factors, and it now incorporates the principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity.

Through an amendment I introduced at committee, the act will now expand this right to include a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. This will bring Canada into alignment with internationally accepted definitions, which we voted for at the UN in July of last year. In this respect, “clean” refers to the fight against pollution; “healthy” refers to ecological balance; and “sustainable” refers to the nexus between the environment and development. This is critical in the act, which is most responsible for advancing sustainable development, so that we practice domestically what we preach internationally.

Bill S-5 would also take major steps forward in advancing transparency and accountability so Canadians can have confidence in how chemicals are being managed. It would refocus departments on planning for assessing substances of highest risk first; provide dedicated timelines to reassess these priorities; provide an avenue for the public to request that a minister assess a substance when new data about a substance becomes available, which would require a response in 90 days; require that reasons be given if the final risk assessments of chemicals exceeds two years; require annual progress reporting and timeline reporting; and strengthen provisions around confidential business information.

Bill S-5, for the first time, would assess the potential impacts of chemical substances on vulnerable populations and the cumulative effects that toxic substances may pose to vulnerable populations. It would ensure that we assess the relative vulnerability that individuals, such as pregnant mothers and children, may have to certain chemicals as well as populations that may be more persistently exposed to a substance.

This will dovetail nicely with the legislation we have also recently passed through this chamber, which will require a national strategy on environmental racism and environmental justice. I want to thank my former seatmate, Lenore Zann, for tabling this, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for reintroducing it after the last election. It is important that we make progress on this because environmental racism is not just a historical blight. We continue to see this today, with the most recent example of the Kearl project tailings leaks and their cumulative impacts on first nations downstream.

That is why I invited Imperial Oil and the Alberta Energy Regulator to appear at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to answer for what happened and why they kept the affected communities in the dark. Big oil and what affected communities widely pan as an industry captured regulator, or in the case of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, a “complete joke”, are convinced that they can pull the rug over Canadians' eyes and people will move on. However, the federal government is stepping in to investigate the company and has gathered all implicated parties to figure out long-term solutions to the entire monitoring and notification system.

It also bears mentioning the related amendment the NDP has proposed. The NDP is trying to make the case that we need to specifically list tailings ponds to have the ability to get information on them under section 46, the information-gathering provisions of CEPA, but this flies in the face of the fact that we already have this ability through powers rooted in subsections (c), (e), (f), (h), (i), (k), (l), and a new proposed subsection we added in Bill S-5 to cover activities that may contribute to pollution.

There is a related agreement with Alberta on oil sands monitoring that is rooted in these powers, but the problem in this case is that Alberta inexplicably violated its duty to notify the federal government. I do ask my NDP colleagues to read the full legislation first, to understand how it addresses information on tailings, rather than simply pressing Ctrl+F and typing “tailings” before providing misleading amendments that there is such a gap. To do otherwise, I believe, is an insult to Canadians' intelligence, and it takes time out from other measures that may actually make the legislation better.

I want to take a few minutes to discuss how Bill S-5 could have been improved. For example, I am disappointed that the legislation will only require the that the right to a healthy environment be considered in the administration of the act, rather than require the protection of it. While I have confidence in our minister to bring in a robust system to protect this new right, there is a risk that future governments and future ministers may roll this back.

Second, the committee also narrowly rejected an amendment I proposed that would have required the minister to take measures to protect the right to a healthy environment where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as part of the implementation framework. I think this is a major missed opportunity. Canada is one of the few developed nations that does not have mandatory ambient air quality standards. The federal government’s own 2016 assessment showed that poor air quality costs Canada at least $120 billion and 15,000 deaths per year, making this an obvious action for us to take to save lives and avoid major health costs. I was encouraged that the minister committed that the implementation framework will clarify how the right to a healthy environment lens will apply to the clean air agenda, but this could have been made explicit in the legislation.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the environment is on all our minds these days as we see images of more than 100 wildfires raging in my home province of Alberta. Thousands of people have had to flee their homes. The provincial government has declared a state of emergency.

As I mentioned in my S.O. 31 last week, such situations as these remind us that the circumstances people endure may be uncontrollable, but we can definitely control our response to them. Canadians understand the need to work together. I am thankful to those across the country who have travelled to Alberta to assist the firefighting efforts.

One of the biggest strengths of our nation is the willingness of Canadians to come together in a crisis. We support each other because that is the Canadian way of doing things. On behalf of everyone in Alberta, I want to thank those from other provinces and territories for standing up to fight the wildfires.

With the environment on our minds, we turn to consider an environmental bill, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. What is the big rush with this bill? Suddenly, the government is in a hurry to pass this legislation; it has come to the point where the government has to limit debate. I find this somewhat amusing. It introduced pretty much the same bill during the last Parliament, but that one failed to pass because the Prime Minister thought an early election was more important.

Protecting the environment is something Liberals talk about a lot. We have heard them talking about setting targets for carbon emissions. We do not hear them talk about how the government has never met a target that it set for itself. Talk is easy. Doing something seems to be more difficult.

Bill S-5 is the first major overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act since the 1990s. Much has changed since then in our understanding of the environment and climate change. The bill is long overdue; however, given the lack of priority the Liberals have given this issue in recent years, I am surprised they feel it is important to limit debate.

When one looks at the legislation, one cannot help but be disappointed. The bill is not really about environmental protection; it is about updating the rules. There is no doubt that many environmental rules need to be updated. Those on toxic substances come to mind. So much can change in 20 years, but there is nothing new here besides vague and undefined promises.

Many pieces of legislation that have come before this House highlight the stark differences in the visions of Canada put forward by the Liberals and the Conservatives. Conservatives put people first, seeking to make the lives of ordinary Canadians better through sensible financial policies. We understand that the government is not supposed to magically create jobs; rather, it should create an environment where the private sector sees opportunities to create jobs.

This bill recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment. It would require the Government of Canada to protect this right, but it would leave it up to the minister to develop an implementation framework and tell us how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of CEPA.

Several years ago, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made recommendations regarding national standards for clean air and clean water. I would have expected them to be included in this legislation. Maybe the minister will get around to including them in the implementation framework, but it would have been nice to have them included so that we could see what the government is planning and make some suggestions for improvement, if needed, in the House.

With all due respect to the minister, I am curious as to what is considered a “healthy environment”. In many ways, the concept goes far beyond the scope of this legislation. Does it include the air we breathe? It most certainly does. What about access to clean drinking water? That goes without saying, although I suppose some communities under drinking water advisories would warn us that such a right has not been extended to all Canadians. Is a healthy environment access to affordable, healthy food? If so, where are the provisions to deal with the inflation the government has created? Yes, the bill would deal with toxic chemicals and with obvious environmental hazards, but there is so much more that needs to be done. I will admit to being a little concerned as to what the minister thinks a healthy environment is, and I hope that, when the definition finally comes, it will be science-based and not sprung out of ideological dogma.

As I have mentioned here before, the current government has a habit of making pronouncements highlighting its environmental plans, then not following through. I hope that, this time, its members really mean what they say. Certainly, the legislation is long overdue. We know so much more about the environment, climate change and the need for action than we did 20 years ago.

It is certainly time to modernize Canada's chemicals management plan. I would suspect that, given rapid advances in industry, we may want to take another look at the plan in a few years. As a nation, we need to be proactive, making sure the environment is properly protected rather than waiting for an industrial accident that could cause harm to the environment and to the Canadian people. The risk-based approach to chemicals management proposed in Bill S-5 makes sense to me.

Last week, I spoke in this chamber regarding Bill S-6, which is an attempt to reduce the mountain of governmental red tape that Canadians face. It seems that, everywhere we turn, there are more regulations. It is almost as if they were breeding.

It is important to have regulations regarding the environment. We need to ensure that our air is fresh and our water pure, not just for today, but for future generations. We hold the environment in trust for our children and grandchildren. Sometimes, though, regulations are unnecessary; they add to the mountain of red tape without achieving what they are supposed to achieve. This is why I am please that Bill S-5 sets out to remove unnecessary red tape from our environmental regulations.

We need protections, but they should be necessary ones. Given the limited scope of the bill, I would not be surprised to see more environmental regulations from the government. Chemicals management and toxic substances are not the only areas of environmental protection that are concerning Canadians.

In this House, we are all committed to protecting our environment, although we sometimes differ as to what the best approach would be. Canada remains the envy of the world for our clean water and clean air, as well as the natural beauty of our country. Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to ensure that future generations can enjoy the same healthy environment that we have today. If we can leave our planet and its environment healthier than it was when our parents passed it on to us, then that will be a fitting legacy.

Revisions to our environmental protection laws are long overdue. Perhaps the government has not acted quickly enough, but it is acting. Perhaps the provisions of the bill do not go as far as some would have liked, but the bill is a beginning. It is not the all-encompassing legislation that some would have hoped for. It is a modest beginning that addresses a need. At least it is a start.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would be inclined to disagree with the member. If we look at the legislation, it would establish a framework that could ultimately be complemented by regulations, which could address some of the concerns she may express during the third reading of Bill S-5.

I believe it enshrines the principles of Canadians to have a right to a healthy environment, and that is a strong and positive step forward.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear some more details, specifically about whether this bill does anything to guarantee a healthy environment.

How does the member explain the fact that this bill is primarily technical, despite the seriousness of the climate crisis? It is really too bad that the bill's sponsor did not have the guts to consider what might happen after Bill S-5 passes.

The House resumed 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, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

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

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House,

(a) Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act, be disposed of as follows:

(i) the bill be deemed concurred in at report stage, as amended, upon the adoption of this order;

(ii) the bill be ordered for consideration at the third reading stage later today after the taking of the deferred recorded divisions,

(iii) when the bill is take up at the third reading stage, one member of each recognized party be allowed to speak for not more than 10 minutes followed by five minutes for questions and comments,

(iv) at the conclusion of the time provided for this debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill shall be deemed read a third time and passed; and

(b) the order adopted earlier today under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) still apply to the proceedings on 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, and that today's proceedings on the bill count as the further sitting day allotted for debate at report stage.

Report Stage

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was referencing the fact that what we have today is very solid legislation. In good part, it is because of all the efforts that have been put into making this legislation what it is today. We could go back to the department and the consultations of hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadians and different stakeholders, all contributing to the original legislation, which went through the Senate. The idea was that by having it go through Senate we would get it passed in a more timely fashion.

The Senate did a fantastic job, as did the House of Commons and colleagues who sit on the standing committee for the House. I referred to the numerous amendments that were proposed.

The Prime Minister has indicated that when we bring in legislation and if there are things we can do to give strength to the legislation as a government, we are open to doing that. It does not have to be a government amendment, and Bill S-5 is a clear demonstration of that. Members from all political parties contributed to the debate and dialogue and listened to the presentations, and many amendments ultimately were accepted. When I started my comments, I was pleased to recognize that members on all sides of the House, like the Senate, would be passing the legislation.

As a parliamentarian over the years, I have seen more people becoming concerned about our environment and what we are doing about it. It is a legitimate concern among Canadians, and it is a growing concern.

When we think about the legislation, we can talk about the toxic substances in the environment. We can talk about how the legislation would set up a better regime for the management of chemicals, or how it would modernize that, or how it would put in place a system that would allow for the science of today to be applied in many different ways with regard to our environment and the types of policy decisions being made. We ultimately will be passing and environmental protection law. All of this will have a significant impact, but it is not just this legislation.

For many years now, we have taken an approach to deal with the environment from both a legislative perspective and a budgetary perspective. Let me give some examples.

When people think of our environment, they often think of plastics. How often do we see plastic grocery bags hanging from trees? It is quite a bit. We can talk about the banning of single-use plastics as an example of a government action that has been received quite well among the public. We can talk about how, through a budget, we were able to support and incentivize people to purchase hybrids or electric vehicles.

We brought in other legislation that made a very powerful statement about net-zero emissions by 2050 and then have regulations to support that, not waiting a year for reports, much like in this legislation. There would be mechanisms put in place to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability. I like the fact that if individual Canadians have specific concerns, a procedure would be in place to allow them to elevate that concern to the government, with some expectation that at least it would be taken into consideration.

When we put everything together and talk about the types of things that we have seen, such as the expansion of land under conservation, the expansion of the number of national parks, bringing in legislation of this nature and supporting the environment through budgetary measures, it has been made very clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been genuine in ensuring that we pass on a healthier, cleaner environment to future generations by putting together a framework that would enable it to continue on.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and support this legislation, Bill S-5. I understand, from what I have been told, that all members of the House recognize its value and are in favour of supporting it. As the House will know, it is a substantive piece of legislation.

It has been a long time since we have seen substantial changes to our environmental laws, which is the essence of what Bill S-5 would do. In many ways, it would make substantive changes that would modernize the law and make a very powerful statement to all Canadians. They have a right to a healthy environment. The essence of Bill S-5 is about ensuring that Canadians recognize they have a right to a healthy environment.

What is interesting is the process that has brought us to where we are today. The legislation has been thoroughly debated in different committees, both at the Senate and at the House of Commons, and it has already had a substantial number of amendments. During the years I was in opposition, it was rare to see amendments, unless of course they were government amendments, but when we think of—

The House resumed from May 3 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, and of the motions in Group No. 1.