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

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill S-5, a very important and much-needed piece of legislation to revise and strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. It has been over 20 years since this act has been updated, so we really need to get this legislation through and make sure we have a good conversation about all aspects of it.

This act has a long title, but its real impact is best conveyed in the short title, which is “strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada”. There are so many constituents in my green riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, green due to its spectacular rains, outdoor spaces, trails and kettle lakes, not necessarily because of its political persuasion, who are advocates for stronger environmental protection. They are champions for preserving green spaces, people like Sue Walmer, Jan Oudenes and Isobel Ralston, who were in Ottawa this week for a summit on the vital work of land trusts. They are activists fighting to protect Canadian health through regulating harmful substances like Gloria Marsh from the York Region Environmental Alliance, champions of greater efficiencies in buildings to reduce carbon emissions like Walter Bauer, and those fighting for animal welfare through strengthened animal protection regulations like Wayne King and Judith Goldberg.

There are many more in my riding and many people across our country. We know it is not limited because studies have shown that nine in 10 Canadians are concerned about children's exposure to toxins in consumer products, for example, and impacts on wildlife, such as birds and fish. There are 92% of Canadians who agree that Canada should recognize Canadians' right to live in a healthy environment. That is why I am proud, as an environmentalist and a member of the environment committee, to fight for Bill S-5 and the fact that we are recognizing that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment.

These amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act represent the Liberal government's promise to devote more energy to current environmental issues. Environmental issues and Canadians' well-being go hand in hand, so these issues call for a comprehensive approach.

Let us talk about one of the main components of this bill, the right to a healthy environment. It is the first time this language has been introduced into federal legislation and it was one of the key themes of the 2017 environmental report. It builds into the framework of Bill S-5 core principles, such as environmental justice, intergenerational equality and non-regression. It is a key step in ensuring that all Canadians will have recourse if they feel their health is at risk.

The language also heavily integrates indigenous concerns and consultation into the process of environmental stewardship, drawn on language from and ensuring Canada's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. It would require the minister to development an implementation framework, and the process of developing this framework would be open to public consultation and input from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This would ensure that this right under this act would address many of the concerns that have been raised here today.

One of the aspects of the bill that has not been discussed so far is the reduction of animal testing. As an animal rights activist myself, I feel that this is a very important aspect. This would address our commitment to end animal testing and reliance on animal testing. We know that there are times when this is necessary, but we are making a commitment to only use animal testing of vertebrates when absolutely necessary and to work on making sure that there are alternatives so that we no longer have to test toxic substances on animals.

Canada and other key international partners, such as the United States and the European Union, are moving toward phasing out animal toxicity testing where possible. It is an issue of concern for many Canadians, such as, as I mentioned, some of my own constituents and me. It is a sign of our government's commitment to increasing the use of non-animal testing methods. I have consulted and talked to numerous parties about this change, including Animal Justice, the Humane Society International and Humane Canada.

We are also working on the mandatory labelling of products containing toxic substances. We are committed to this and we are going to be working on providing a complete framework as to how this should best be done and making sure that imported and domestic products are required to have the same kind of labelling.

There would be a new regulatory framework for the substitution of chemicals. There would also be new categories to highlight areas of concern, like carcinogenic and mutagenic substances and substances that are harmful to reproductive health.

We are going further with this bill, and I know that my dear friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned that she had some concern about this. I am really looking forward to working with her and other members at committee, as we bring this bill forward, to make sure that all concerns are addressed and that the bill really does address the concerns of all Canadians in this area and many others.

I am committed to a Canada that protects our health and the health of all of us. We need to get this bill to committee so we can study it further, look at the amendments the Senate has made and ensure we get it through and update the 1999 legislation.

I feel it is very important that we continue to work together, continue to work across levels of government and continue to work with all parties to ensure that this commitment to having a healthy environment and healthy Canadians moves forward. All the good things about this bill should be built upon. Let us get it through so that we finally update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

I am happy to answer questions.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's positive comments on the bill, but I think she may know, as others do, that one of the things I really want to see is mandatory labelling of heavy metals and toxic chemicals on consumer products, which is not in the bill at present. As I have referred to several times in this debate, we found that in dollar stores, lots of the products that have been tested contain heavy metals and toxic chemicals.

Would the member's party be willing to consider amendments that would make mandatory labelling of these consumer products available to parents so they can decide what they are going to expose their families to?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a very important issue, and knowing what substances are in these products is important. There is language in the bill addressing this and it will be studied further. I look forward to having that conversation in committee and to trying to strengthen this bill as much as possible.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for talking about how she is prepared to work with the opposition to try to make changes to the legislation as it goes to committee. That is a good sign.

We see in the legislation the scheduling of toxic products. It talks about how to put products onto schedule 1 or schedule 2, but what it does not talk about is how we take them off when scientists find out that a product is no longer toxic.

Would the member be prepared to move forward with putting in legislation that would change that to allow steps to be put in place to make certain that toxic products that are no longer considered toxic can actually be removed?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am willing to work across the aisle and willing to work with anyone to improve the environment and address issues that will lead to a healthier Canada. There is language in this bill about removing substances when they are no longer used in Canada, and I certainly hope that toxic substances are no longer being used in Canada. I think that would address the member's concern.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill mentioned animal testing specifically in her speech and that there is language in Bill S-5 that moves in the right direction. Specifically, there is mention of encouraging the development of other alternatives.

I wonder if the member could comment more on whether she feels this is sufficient and/or if more could be done.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a believer in “better is always possible”, so I think more can be done. I think we need to look at this carefully.

I have a dear friend who is suffering from ovarian cancer. She is a doctor of veterinary medicine, and currently there is testing being done at the University of Guelph on cows that have ovarian cancer. In some cases, when there are no options available, I support testing on animals, but I think we have to do everything we can to find substitutes and to only use this testing when it is absolutely necessary. I would like to strengthen that as well.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her work on the environment committee.

What piqued my interest is when she talked about working across the aisle and trying to do better things for Canadians and the environment by working with the opposition. I would ask her to consider this. How can we look across the aisle and work with the opposition when on a daily basis we get such a kickback every time we try to come up with an environmental initiative? It gets very frustrating, from my point of view. I would be interested in the member's thoughts on how we might be able to break through.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I guess hope is eternal and something is always possible. I know that at the environment committee, in working with members of all parties, we try to find common ground.

I do not want to have debates about whether climate change is real, as we are far beyond that, but I believe we can work together to try to move forward, because everybody feels that a heathier Canada and a healthier environment are good not only for Canadians but for all citizens around the world. I hope we can work together.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today as we debate Bill S-5, a piece of legislation that would make significant changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, otherwise known as CEPA. CEPA has not had any major modifications made to it since it was passed in 1999, so there are a lot of aspects of this bill that would have major impacts on the lives of Canadians and on industry, especially as they relate to certain substances and materials.

When people think of the word “legislation”, they expect wording that is clear and concise. Given that bills are eventually enshrined into our laws, it is reasonable to assume that much thought and intention has gone into the words that are being used, and that there is no opportunity for confusion or room for interpretation that could lead to problems for the government in the long term.

One part of the bill that falls under that category, in my view, is the right to a healthy environment, which is in the preamble and not in the legislation. I want to be clear that all of my Conservative colleagues and I firmly believe in and support the right to a healthy environment for each and every Canadian. We are so fortunate to live in a country that contains so many different ecosystems and is filled with natural beauty from coast to coast to coast. It is understandable that we want to be sure that our healthy environment is present and thriving all across the country, not just today but for future generations as well.

The challenge with this is that it is undefined. Having wording that is open to interpretation on such an important matter like this could create issues down the road. If this piece of legislation needs to be revisited years from now because of a lack of clarity, it will cost the taxpayer money. The ideal situation would be to add a definition now or when the bill goes to committee to ensure that we are not going to run into any issues and that there is clarity over what this important right really means.

We also want be sure that the use of vague terminology without a proper definition does not potentially lead to litigation. I do not believe that this is the intent of the bill, so this needs to be tightened up to provide absolutely certainty regarding the definition.

I bring this up because most Canadians watching this are expecting to see us around a table working out some good legislation. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture is quoted as saying the “real role” of the opposition parties is to improve legislation and programming. Hopefully the government is prepared to make some amendments to this going forward, with consideration given to our feedback.

It sure sounds good in the media to say that this right is important and is a priority, but if there are no measures for progress and no benchmarks outlined in the legislation, how is anyone going to know that we have actually done the work? It seems like including the right to a healthy environment in Bill S-5 is more about getting a good sound bite than actually improving the lives of Canadians and our environment.

Another thing that I am concerned about with respect to this particular part of the bill is that it gives the minister two years to come up with an implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment, when we know that it took five years just to consult with the public. If this is an essential right, why is it going to take so long for the minister to come up with a simple definition of what this right looks like? To me, it cannot be a priority if it is going to take years to come up with a framework around the issue, let alone the time it would take to actually implement it.

Why does the government struggle so hard to do more than one thing at a time? This part of the bill is yet another virtue-signalling policy that does not do a single thing to help the environment and does a disservice to Canadians. What the Liberals do not understand is that this needs to be done correctly, transparently and in a timely manner, something we have learned the government is unfortunately incapable of doing.

Another aspect of the bill that I have some concern about has to do with plastics, specifically with the word “toxic” being removed from the title of the schedule but still being referred to everywhere else in the legislation. Again, this creates confusion and a lack of clarity for anyone who might read the bill going forward. It also seems to me that the time and money being spent on this would be put to better use if they were invested in things like recycling and clean technology, rather than vilifying an industry and product that every single person in the House uses every day.

Just think for a second about how essential plastics are in our day-to-day lives. The houses we live in, the cars we drive, the public transit we take and the technology that allows us to do our jobs, like phones and computers, all rely on plastic.

Plastics are also irreplaceable in many fields of medicine and science, and without them, we would not have had the necessary PPE that was used during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as things like IV lines, IV bags, intubation tubes, feeding tubes, syringes and valves, respirators and ventilators, oxygen masks, rehabilitation equipment and suction cups, not to mention the children's toys that placated families when they were sitting at home and isolated. While I understand that plastic is not perfect, it makes no sense that our government continues to vilify a product and an industry that continually makes our lives better and easier, and allows us to live as comfortably as we do.

I was fortunate to be given a tour of the Heartland Petrochemical Complex near Fort Saskatchewan while it was in its development stage, and as of July 5, it was officially opened. In fact, the Minister of Tourism and Associate Finance Minister was in attendance.

This polypropylene plant will generate 65% fewer GHGs than average global plants. It also uses air cooling and not water cooling, which reduces water use by 80%. This facility will result in food packaging, textiles, health care products, medical supplies and more. Furthermore, it is able to reduce GHGs as it now has two carbon capture and storage units, and it is building a third, thus protecting the environment. It avoids shipping propane via truck, train and ship to overseas producers who will create the plastic beads that are shipped back to Canada. This reduces emissions and the risk of safety issues. Let us not forget that this government gave $49 million for this complex.

I would like to speak to Senate amendments 17 and 18, which would create new obligations for industries that use living organisms in their work.

The new obligations would require both the minister and the industry to conduct private consultations for each living organism produced in Canada. I am no laboratory scientist, but I was a regulator at an industry for many years before becoming a member of Parliament. One thing that I firmly believe, based on that experience, is that the industry should regulate itself. As soon as the government starts getting overly involved, things start getting complicated to the detriment of the industry and the taxpayer, due to the extra level of red tape and the inherent cost associated with it.

While there are areas of Bill S-5 that do cut red tape, which I am certainly supportive of, these particular amendments would do the opposite by creating a redundant process. In my view, the government should be focused on making things clearer and more straightforward through the removal of these extra, unnecessary steps, rather than adding more. We know that the bill is not much more than an effort to modernize bureaucracy rather than one that is focused on environment policy, so I am unsure as to why the government would want to increase the burden for the industry, which already does a world-class job with its public consultations.

Furthermore, this additional step would not do anything to improve the already stringent safety measures that are used by the industry today. Doing double the consultation does not equal double the safety or protection against harm. It would also have the potential to set a dangerous precedent for chemicals in general, which is something that is a major concern. Ultimately, we need to realize that there are existing regulatory processes and practices in place, and that the people who are best placed to carry out these practices are the experts, the industry.

The last part of the bill that I want to touch on is the provision that would allow for any person to request the minister assess whether a substance is capable of becoming toxic. I believe it is essential that all appropriate safety measures are taken with respect to substances, but I have serious concerns that this policy could open the door for hundreds if not thousands of requests given the wide scope of it.

This government has a dismal record when it comes to clearing backlogs, as I am sure many veterans who have been waiting years for their disability benefits could tell us. The last thing they need is yet another backlog to clear, which would also likely come with financial implications and cost to the taxpayer due to the need to hire more people to assist in processing these requests. It is a mess waiting to happen, and I strongly encourage that this measure be reconsidered so that we can avoid yet another bureaucratic nightmare.

The fact of the matter is that, while this government tries to convince everyone that it is the ultimate champion of Canada's environment, it has missed every single emissions target it has set, and has only hurt hard-working Canadians through ineffective policies such as the carbon tax. My constituents have zero trust left in this government's ability to make life better for them, so I do hope that the Liberals will listen to the feedback given on Bill S-5 and make the necessary changes for this piece of legislation to do the job it is intended to do.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep talking about this as though it is as a government bill. I would remind the member that the burgundy shade on the screen where it lists the name of the bill, along with the S in front of it, means that it came from the Senate. It is not a government bill.

Nonetheless, the way the Conservatives are approaching this is that as we have to use so many plastics nowadays, therefore we may as well give up and assume that plastics are inevitably going to be as abundant as they are now forever.

Yes, I am aware, and I am sure most people are aware of the fact that just about everything in this room has some degree of plastic in it, but does that mean that we cannot at least strive for a better world? If we know that plastics are so bad, that the very first plastic ever created is still in existence today, and the harm they are doing to our environment, why would we not at least try to do better? Why can we not at least look for ways to do things differently, even if it means that today we are still going to be using plastic? Why can we not look toward a future that has less plastic in it? Would the member not agree that is a good thing?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, knowing the level of knowledge this gentleman has, I am sure he is well aware of the fact that the original legislation was put forward by his government back in the last Parliament and that the Senate has proposed some amendments to it. The unfortunate part is that, although some of the amendments being proposed may have good steps, some of them do not, and those steps need to be taken as we move forward.

With respect to plastics, I would agree with the member if someone had the knowledge to come up with another product, but at the present time we are moving propane and other dangerous chemicals via ship, truck or train, and putting the lives of Canadians at risk when we could actually be producing it here in Canada. We can produce these nice wee pebbles that can be used to produce many products that we need, such as the parts we need for our vehicles, our new electric vehicles, or other items we have in this country.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that commonsensical speech.

I know how important health is to him. I know how much he wants to see his children, his grandchildren and perhaps, with luck, his great-grandchildren grow up and be happy in a world where their health is not constantly at risk.

In his speech, he talked about wording that is vague and, yes, some of it is vague.

What suggestions would he make in committee to tighten things up so the bill is clearer and can be implemented more quickly?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague on the government operations and estimates committee and what she brought to the committee.

She is right. I have two grandchildren, and I am so proud of them. My youngest grandchild is only four months old. I want to see them have something here as we move forward, and those are steps that need to be taken. That is what I think part of this legislation needs to have, and I love to hear comments on that from the Bloc and the member on the Liberal side who talked about working together. Those are the steps I think need to be done. We need to sit here, put those issues out there and banter back and forth, because that is what the public expects us to do and wants us to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. He is a good friend. I really appreciated working with him on OGGO when he was our previous chair.

I am really grateful that my colleague voted for my Motion No. 51 back in 2018 to tackle plastic pollution and reduce plastics in our environment. He supported the banning of straws and different plastics. Does he not agree that we have a duty to ensure that, when there are chemical ingredients that are known or suspected to cause cancer or harm the reproductive or endocrine systems, it should be mandatory to require the labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products, which is what we are calling for in this bill? Would he support an amendment to support that?