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

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the wildfires in his area and the weather events that happened on the east coast. I am genuinely unsure where the Conservative Party is when we talk about that being a result of climate change. I wonder if the member could share with the House if he believes that climate change is real and that those events are a product of climate change.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague across the way knows where I stand on that question. As a matter of fact, I said it in my speech. We are dealing with extraordinary events due to climate change, such as the wildfires we saw in our neck of the woods and the floods we have seen. We had incredible weather storms, the tsunamis, the flooding we saw in the lower mainland and the hurricane we saw on the east coast.

The fact of the matter is that our climate has been changing, and we have to adapt as we move forward. We have to have a real plan. A carbon tax is not a plan to combat climate change. That is what we are saying on this side. What is the plan for the government to combat climate change?

It always wants to push that back and ask us what our plan is. We would like to remind the Liberals that they have been in government for seven years, and they have failed every step of the way to meet any targets they have set. They have failed to do the things they have promised Canadians.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I am pleased to rise to speak today on Senate Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. This is the first major reform of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act since 1999. Obviously, modernizing it was long overdue.

Bill S-5 proposes some major additions, some of which may go beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. In order to understand this bill, it is important to remember that parliamentarians have spoken out on several occasions on the subject, and that there are clear expectations about what should be included in this bill. That said, the government reiterated its desire to strengthen this legislation, and the minister decided to ask the Senate to sponsor it, which is a sign of good intentions.

What can we expect from a government on the environment?

In Quebec, for example, the government is working to apply environmental protection laws and regulations; reduce water, air and soil contamination; protect biodiversity and save species and habitats; assess industrial projects and manage residual materials; and much more. We can see that Quebec knows how to defend its environmental interests and that it does not need Canada’s help to promote and protect Quebeckers’ fundamental rights.

What should we expect from citizens, such as business people, when it comes to the environment? We must encourage citizens and business people to actively participate in the development of a healthier environment. Citizens can take smaller steps on a daily basis to reduce their environmental footprint by recycling and consuming as few polluting and toxic products as possible. Business people can take bigger steps. I am thinking in particular of building owners. All too often, building owners do not want to invest to make their properties more energy efficient, although there are effective solutions out there.

Consider Dany Bonapace, a citizen in my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Last year, for example, he told the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that we could use artificial intelligence technology to manage energy needs, develop systems to reduce energy consumption and optimize the use of the energy produced. We can implement solutions to reduce our energy consumption and produce renewable energies such as wind and solar power. Buildings can store energy in batteries and take part in energy sharing infrastructure networks. Digital technologies offer numerous possibilities.

The federal government could set an example by accelerating the work to make its buildings more energy efficient. It could also introduce penalties to the subsidies given to companies whose buildings are not energy efficient. We also need to use renewable energies to ensure we run mining and forestry operations in an environmentally responsible way. Mining and forestry companies must themselves begin to produce renewable energy.

These are some of the actions that citizens, business people and industries are already proposing in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

What about Bill S-5? More specifically, what are some of its objectives, and how will they affect Quebec? One of its major objectives is to establish the right to a healthy environment. We are not fooled by the Liberal government’s claim that the modernization of the act creates the “right to a healthy environment”, a partisan claim that is not worth much.

If the government were serious and politically bold, it would propose a round of constitutional negotiations with the federation’s partners in order to add this right to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms already establishes that a person can seek an injunction to ensure that their right to live in a healthful environment is respected. It is therefore clear that the federal government could learn from Quebec and that Quebecers do not need the federal government to guarantee them a healthy environment.

However, there are opportunities for co-operation in Bill S-5, in particular concerning a regulatory framework for dealing with toxic substances. For example, the Bloc Québécois would like to collaborate with all members of Parliament on the management of chemicals and toxic substances, assessments of the cumulative effects of toxic substances, particularly among vulnerable populations, and mandatory labelling requirements.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that I asked the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology to conduct a study on the recycling industry. This will make it possible to propose solutions and make recommendations that we can then debate in the House.

It is important to remember that Bill S-5 reflects the recommendations of health and environment groups as closely as possible.

There is also the whole issue of transparency. To be able to collaborate with health and environment groups, we absolutely need more transparency. Information must be more accessible and more widely publicized. There must also be significant public participation in the assessment of industrial projects, because that will help significantly reduce the level of skepticism toward businesses and governments. Moreover, we continue to demand that first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples be part of the process from the outset.

Although the Bloc Québécois supports it, the bill should not be an excuse for the federal government to impose environmental requirements on Quebec. Quebec has often said that it opposed any federal action in environmental issues on its territory, and it is important to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction in environmental matters. As I said earlier, Quebec is a leader in environmental protection, and its commitment to renewable energies, its conservation efforts and the quality of its environmental regulations are exemplary. For these reasons, we are prepared to share the Quebec government's knowledge and strengths with the federal government in order to achieve the universal objective of environmental protection.

I will also propose two actions that could also enhance an environmental bill. When she spoke before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Laure Waridel suggested that we focus on environmental taxation. We could include such measures in legislation aimed at ensuring a healthy environment. We are talking about internalizing the environmental and social costs of products and services by applying the polluter pay principle, for example.

Representatives of Enerkem also appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology as part of its study of the green recovery, and spoke about the waste management sector, which has developed advanced recycling technology, advanced biofuels, and renewable chemicals produced from biomass and non-recyclable residual materials.

All of these new technologies require considerable research and development, as well as private and public capital investments. There will need to be an international strategy to foster the development of innovative waste management solutions.

According to what Mr. Chornet told us, Europe and the United States have implemented regulations fostering the use of second-generation biofuels, or green chemicals. As a result, it is more profitable for Enerkem to sell products in California and Europe, since regulations there encourage businesses to opt for green chemistry. Mr. Chornet believes Canada needs to establish the necessary conditions to encourage project implementation and biofuel consumption in order to benefit from the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with green chemistry. Those are just some examples.

In conclusion, environmental protection transcends borders. It is a global phenomenon that all of us need to address. Bill S‑5 will help Quebec reach the environmental targets it has already set, but there needs to be collaboration with the federal government. That is why I and my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. It is always interesting to hear our colleagues from Quebec share Quebec's vision. Quebec has long been a leader in the fight against climate change and environmental conservation.

In my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, as well as in the neighbouring riding, the protection of endangered species is a very important issue. Five or six years ago, the federal government was asked to intervene to protect an endangered species, the tiny chorus frog.

Does my colleague think it is important for the federal government to be able to intervene like this from time to time?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague of the supremacy of the provinces', and therefore Quebec's, environmental legislation.

This being said, there is something I always find somewhat bizarre in certain fundamental environmental debates. I am thinking in particular about Gazoduq's GNL Quebec project. In Quebec, the general public, the media and members of Parliament were more concerned about the possible impact on the fjord's whales than the possible impact on people's health.

I think we need to think about this and make human health a priority when we undertake environmental or industrial projects.

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

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member mentioned that, in his opinion, the provinces have priority when the matter affects their territory directly. It is important to understand that, on this side of the House, we respect provincial jurisdiction.

Last week, the Minister of the Environment severely condemned a project that is 100% under provincial jurisdiction. He even said that he was going to conduct an investigation, when there are already environmental investigations under way. This involves the third link.

The official opposition severely condemned the Liberal minister's remarks, saying that it was a bad habit among Liberals to meddle in affairs that do not concern them and to lecture the provinces, suggesting that the people in Ottawa are better informed than the people in Quebec. This is not true at all.

We think that Quebec has full authority over environmental matters when it comes to the third link. Does my colleague agree?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question. It will be interesting to see what project the Quebec government proposes.

I think that the Quebec government's expectation is very clear: The federal government should provide financial support and nothing else. The decisions must be made by and for the provinces.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about refitting buildings, especially, and lowering energy there, which is something we certainly agree on as New Democrats. Even the Conservatives had it in their platform, so it is something we all agree on.

The government, through Natural Resources Canada, put out the greener homes grant so people could retrofit their homes, lower their emissions and save money when it comes to home heating. However, I got an email from Tom, in my riding, who is one of many. He said, “Greener homes is a great program on paper and helps to motivate homeowners with energy-efficient upgrades, but if I knew the process would be this long and arduous I likely would not have applied. It needs to be fixed. Please help.” He cannot even get a call back. He has been waiting for months for his refit program.

Can my colleague speak about how important it is that when people do the right thing, the government follows through and makes sure they get the rebate quickly so they are encouraged to invest in clean energy?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an entire area in which not much has been done. I am talking about building energy efficiency. That is why I thought it was important to mention it in my speech.

Yes, efforts are being made, especially in Quebec. Hydro-Québec's Hilo project is one example. Just imagine how much energy we can recover. When I arrive home in my electric car, I can plug it in.

It is more difficult as a member of Parliament, considering our schedule, but an ordinary citizen who gets home at supper time could plug in their car, and the battery's energy could be used to prepare a meal or wash the dishes at a time of day when energy is in high demand. At the end of the day or during the night, the house would charge the electric car. This energy sharing is possible. It would be more energy efficient and would benefit everyone.

There are, however, set-up costs, and the government could give us a hand with that.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here in the House to discuss Bill S-5, or the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. This bill originated in the Senate this time, and it is being sponsored by Quebec Senator Marc Gold. We are at second reading stage.

Bill S‑5 seeks to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which dates back to 1999 and is commonly referred to as CEPA. This act would replace the Food and Drugs Act and repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act. This bill, which is not a complete overhaul of CEPA, seeks to amend CEPA in order to recognize the right to a healthy environment, consider vulnerable populations and the cumulative effects that may result from exposure to toxic substances, create a system for regulating toxic substances, and create a system for assessing and managing the risks that drugs pose to the environment.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill S‑5.

I would like to remind members that the Bloc Québécois believes that the Quebec nation is the sole authority over public decisions regarding the environment and the Quebec territory.

Until we achieve independence, however, certain environmental protection responsibilities fall to the federal government under the current legal framework. It is clear that the legislation needs to be modernized. There has not been an update in more than 20 years, since 1999.

Canada has fallen very far behind other nations. No one is surprised, really. Canada has never managed to meet a single climate target and is lagging far behind the rest of the world in the fight against climate change. I am not surprised that Canada has such outdated environmental legislation. It is unfortunate and sad, but that is how it is.

In 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development published a report containing 87 recommendations. One of those recommendations was to recognize the right to a healthy environment. Let us not be fooled, however. The Bloc Québécois did not fail to notice the partisan claims inserted into Bill S‑5.

Elements pertaining to the right to a healthy environment are found in CEPA's preamble, but their scope remains very limited. This means that they have no impact on other Canadian laws. While the bill would add the protection of this right to the federal government's mission, the proposed amendments would not necessarily create a true fundamental right to live in a healthy environment. To have a real impact, this right would have to be entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 2006, Quebec introduced the right to a healthy environment in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.” This right was entrenched in our laws in Quebec in 2006.

In Quebec's political context, the Quebec charter, unlike CEPA, is quasi-constitutional in scope, no matter what our colleagues from other parties believe. Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect Quebeckers' fundamental rights.

Over a year ago, on October 8, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council recognized that having a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right and called on “States around the world to work together, and with other partners, to implement this newly recognized right”.

In a statement, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights “called on States to take bold actions to give prompt and real effect to the right to a healthy environment”.

Over 100 countries have already recognized this right constitutionally, while Canada is just getting around to including it in a law that does not have any real scope. That is not surprising coming from a country that is addicted to oil and gas, but it is obviously very disappointing. It is not surprising, but it is disappointing.

Enshrining the right to a healthy environment in law is a good first step, and the Bloc Québécois welcomes that. That is why we will support Bill S-5.

Bill S‑5 contains a number of technical aspects that should be carefully examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This modernization should truly enable the government to fulfill its environmental protection responsibilities while respecting Quebec's sovereignty over vulnerable populations, chemical management, the list of toxic substances, the strengthening of risk management accountability, the overall assessment of the cumulative effects of substances, and mandatory labelling requirements.

The Bloc Québécois wants to work with all parliamentarians so that the repealed act reflects the recommendations of health and environmental protection groups and chemical industry partners as well as possible.

For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be vigilant in studying this bill.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S‑5.

This bill aims to modernize the entire environmental protection framework, and we understand full well that this is a shared responsibility. How does my colleague see the federal and provincial governments working together to protect this right to a healthy environment?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we must work together, that is for certain. As we know, the environment is very important to us in Quebec, and we are ahead of the curve, as my colleague mentioned earlier in a question to one of my colleagues. We are very aware of this issue. Perhaps it is in our genes, but we are highly aware.

In 2006, Quebec passed legislation similar to the bill we are discussing in the House today. Clearly Quebec is interested. Clearly Quebec will co-operate. Until we become independent, we are part of Canada.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing we do not talk enough about when we talk about the right to a healthy environment is indigenous people and food security, and the impact climate change is having on indigenous peoples.

Where I live the headline in Chek News today was “Drought destroys wild mushrooms in Vancouver Island forests”. These mushrooms are chanterelles and various different mushrooms. We have never, in history, not had chanterelles, but they are basically wiped out. The smoke is so bad we can barely breathe on the west coast. In terms of precipitation in the Comox Valley, they have had five millimetres from August to October, when it is normally 194 millimetres. In Port Alberni, where I live, there has been 6.6 millimetres of rain, and normally we have 332 millimetres of rain by now.

Maybe my colleague could speak about the climate emergency that we are under, the lack of urgency from the government, and how it is impacting both local food security in his community and indigenous people and the important non-timber forest products they rely on.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I like my NDP colleague. I appreciate his questions and his compassion.

His question covered a lot of ground. He started by talking about indigenous peoples, then disasters in British Columbia, then climate issues and so on. That is all very important to me, I have to say. I know it is also deeply important to him too. These are some of the issues he brings to our attention every day.

All I can say is that, although this is a big bill, it lacks substance. It is big, it is late, but it is here, and we will support it, as will the NDP, I imagine. There is so much to do. He mentioned the Liberal government, and it is clear that the government is not walking the talk as it buys pipelines and drills in the Atlantic. What it says does not line up with what it does. I know exactly where he is coming from with that question.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on something. If Quebec were a sovereign state, how far could it go in protecting and strengthening the environment and a healthy Quebec?