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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a consistent issue the Conservatives will bring up is that all pieces of legislation require a considerable amount of time and there should not be any sorts of limitations and so forth. We have substantive legislation that is fairly widely supported, and as far as I know even the Conservative Party is supporting the passage of this legislation, so it seems everyone in the chamber is supporting the legislation. My concern is that there are all sorts of other things we could be looking at.

I have a very straightforward question. Are Conservative Party members saying they would like to pass it out of second reading this year? Are they saying we should wait, because they have so many speakers that we might need to take it into 2023? Can the member give Canadians a sense of how long he would like to see this in second reading?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think so far we have debated this bill, in real terms, for less than 20 hours. When we are talking about a bill that may impact every consumer product in Canada, we need more than 20 hours of debate. The implications of an amendment to CEPA of the magnitude put forward by the government and supported by the Conservatives require more than half a week's worth of work.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from British Columbia for raising this. It almost seems like the government believes that if all parties agree, there is no process or no point in having members of Parliament go through the legislation. This is complex legislation; it touches upon criminal law, and there are going to be different parts of the country that are going to be affected differently.

Does the member believe the parliamentary secretary seems to be one-sided, so that only one person, either him or the Prime Minister, should be in charge of everything, or does he believe we have a Parliament for a reason, which is to raise issues and to debate different aspects of the legislation?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing I pointed out at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was the tendency of the government to only put up one or two speakers, who happen to be the same person, on a regular basis. What that does to debate is it minimizes it. I would love to see every member of the Liberal backbench standing up and asking for a slot to speak to this important legislation.

As my colleague mentioned, every single member of Parliament is impacted by this legislation in a very real way. There are perhaps trillions of dollars at stake here. There are consequences related to how we consume products, what products are put into our oceans and how babies are protected from toxic substances. That requires more than a couple of hours of debate, and it is incumbent upon every single member to speak up and apply this legislation to how it impacts their respective constituencies. I do not know why the Government of Canada just does not want to do that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege and an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Red Deer—Mountain View, and it certainly is to do so today, as we are talking about a bill that is promoting the right to a healthy environment. I 100% agree with that. My major issue is recognizing Canadian achievements and making sure we keep that in mind as well.

As we debate Bill S-5, which would make these changes, I think it is important, as has been mentioned before, that we recognize the fact that CEPA has not been updated since it was passed in 1999. The tabling of Bill S-5 would be the first significant update, so it is important.

However, after the Senate process, Bill S-5 has been amended greatly, and I must admit, it is not for the best. I think it is important we talk about some of the Liberal track record. For example, I understand what is being advocated for in the dark green environmentalist world, but in the real world, particularly in those countries where energy security is so important and so urgent, people are clamouring for clean natural gas. They are rethinking their previous nuclear and coal objections. They are recognizing their electrical grid limitations, and they are hoping countries like us, with a reputation of using our wealth, expertise and innovation, will be there to help them during these tumultuous times.

For the more than two billion people in this world who use animal dung for their energy, and for those countries that are forced to rely on conflict oil, will Canada use every bit of its energy know-how to bring all of our resources to their shores? Does the government have a real vision for the future where the mining and processing of rare earth minerals, our world-class reclamation expertise and our human rights records will be recognized and respected, or when the time comes, will those too be politically demonized?

All energy sources leave an environmental footprint, even the dung being used by 25% of the world's citizens for energy. We do not flood massive tracts of land for eternity for hydro power without consequences. We do not build massive windmills without using hydrocarbons. We do not build solar panels without dealing with toxic substances. We do not mine or drill oil wells without disturbance. Plus, we need energy to build each of these infrastructures, and I believe that when we discuss any energy source development, its transportation and use, its recycling and disposal, or its effect on the living things that surround it, we must analyze the entire upstream and downstream effects, from the first shovel digging it up to the last shovel covering it up.

Only then can we truly talk about the consequences of all these technologies, of EVs, hydrogen, hybrid ICE, and full battery production, repurposing and recycling. Only then will Canadians be able to make educated decisions about the energy options faced by this nation. If we take the political science out of this equation and focus specifically on the true metrics of these choices, we will have accomplished so much.

The question is if the government will ensure that, in future, all types of energy sources be subject to the same rigorous assessment as the government has demanded with Canada's hydrocarbon industry. I certainly hope it will.

I would like to take a few moments to discuss what the legislation would do and then look at the few amendments from the Senate that I have issues with.

Bill S-5 recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment, and it would require the Government of Canada to protect that right. I will come back to one of these, as I have some comments on this. Second, Bill S-5 would add language to CEPA to highlight the government's commitment to implementing UNDRIP and to recognize the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing the toxicity of substances. Third, it would create a regime for highest risk substances. This would replace the list of toxic substances.

Fourth, it lays out a criterion for the government to look to for managing and regulating a substance. Next, Bill S-5 would require the ministers to develop and publish a plan specifying which substances should be given priority for assessing whether they are toxic or can become toxic. Bill S-5 would also ensure all new substances must be developed in 24 months if a substance is determined to be toxic.

The bill also streamlines risk assessment for drugs and removes redundancies in regulations. That I am a fan of. Finally, Bill S-5 allows any person to request a minister to assess whether a substance can become toxic.

We know that this legislation looked dramatically different when it was first tabled in the Senate. Some of our unelected colleagues in the other place have a habit of gerrymandering legislation to suit their own agendas. They have done so with the current vision of Bill S-5. In any event, there are significant concerns about certain amendments passed in the Senate, which I will be addressing.

The Senate passed 24 amendments, 11 of which I think are detrimental to the bill and industry. For example, plastic manufacturing items are now listed in schedule 1, part 2, of substances that need to be regulated. I cannot imagine our friends in the plastic industry are very happy about that. Plastics are used in medical devices and medical supplies, such as tubing, and in dentistry and surgeries. They are used in automobiles, cell phones and thousands of other items used daily. Common sense is required here.

I mentioned that I would circle back to the right to a healthy environment. While the Senate has added language here around mechanisms to support the protection of that right and reasonable limits, I feel this is premature and too prescriptive. It could predetermine certain elements of consultations with stakeholders. Furthermore, the ambiguous nature of this language will spur new litigation and impact the way that CEPA is enforced. The government would be wise to clear up the language on this, as the right does only apply to CEPA, and it is not a charter right.

The next amendments I have issues with are amendments 17 and 18, which pertain to living organisms. When I was the vice-chair of the environment committee, I heard from concerned industry stakeholders that this provision creates a new obligation for industries that use living organisms to hold public consultations with the minister for each new living organism developed in Canada. Not a lot of people understand what these living organisms are all about. They are environmentally responsive. They are cells. They are changeable in growth. They are reproductive. They have a complex chemistry, and they have a homeostasis with energy processing. Those are the sorts of things that we are speaking of.

The potential for theft of intellectual property is vast here. If I were involved in this, and if my competitors required that we hold public consultations, and they are developing an organism in my space, why would I invest in research and development when it can be taken from the public consultations and tweaked slightly? I have heard from industry about the chilling effect this would have on research and development in Canada and in investment and industry in Canada. This will set a dangerous precedent for chemicals.

The next amendments that I have concern over are amendments 9 and 15, relating to schedule 1, part 1. By replacing substances that pose the highest risk language, and reference to schedule 1, part 1, the Senate has added more rigid language. Removing the words “highest risk” makes enforcement of this provision unclear. Although the right is not yet defined, and challenges exist there, the government will have up to two years after this bill passes to figure out what that right means to stakeholders.

I will be supporting the bill, but I would like to see my colleagues at the environment committee return the bill to its original state or get as close as we can. I think this is one of the critical issues that we all have to be concerned about.

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

Madam Speaker, the member said in his conclusions that he will be supporting the bill. I appreciate the fact that the Conservatives, like the New Democrats and the Bloc Party, as I understand it, will be supporting the legislation.

The previous question I asked one of his colleagues was on how the Conservative Party seems determined to continue debate at second reading. I had posed this question: Would it like to see this legislation passed out of second reading in 2022, or is it looking at 2023?

Does the Conservative Party have any idea as to when it would actually like to see the legislation go forward, given the fact that it supports the bill and there is a lot of work and a lot of interest to try to start the committee process?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, lots of times in politics one only takes part of the sentence that was presented. I said I would be supporting the bill and wanting to see my colleagues at the environment committee return it back to its original state or get it as close as we can. That basically means that all of these amendments I mentioned are the reason we need to do that.

Of course, if we are going to discuss why that is important, that is the purpose of the House. I am sure the member did not mean to take my comment out of context, but certainly that is the reason it is important for us to be able to continue this discussion.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, in Quebec, in 2022, a motion was passed affirming Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Will he support the Bloc Québécois in its efforts to ensure that there is no interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, interference with industries in provinces is something that the government is an expert at. Those issues and things that are important in Quebec are certainly just as important in my province of Alberta. It is critical that the current federal government get off of its ideological messaging and start thinking about things that are real.

I mentioned earlier as well my concern that we never measure things. We wait until it hits the media and then we crank up the discussion with that. However, to think that any energy process that we have, any item that we have and any molecules that are being presented do not affect the environment is an issue that we should all be concerned about. Certainly the area of provincial rights is probably the best place to make sure that this is done properly.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View's words of wisdom. The great orator Paul Harvey said, “Self-government won't work without self-discipline.”

The plastics industry has been a regulator for many years and has done tremendous work on regulating its industry. The member talked about the issues of toxic substances, etc. I wonder if he would agree that part of what is missing in this legislation is the fact that, while we put toxic products on schedule 1, part 1 or part 2, we do not have any mechanism in the legislation that would take them off it, the steps to take them off the schedule if it were found out scientifically that the products were not toxic. I wonder if the member would have any comments on that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, that gives me an opportunity to deal with the rest of the story. That, of course, has to do with the significance of our plastics industry.

I was at a school not that long ago and a student said, “What are you going to do about plastic straws?” I said that we can make that decision as to whether we want it that way or if we want to have the paper straws. At least, we should understand that it takes three times as much energy to produce the paper straw as it does to produce the plastic straw, so we need to understand that there are going to be trade-offs. That is really the critical point.

One of the main things that I was speaking about was that we have to make sure that we measure all things that are done, and then we make wise decisions. We can tell people that a decision has been made for this purpose, and we do not have to be always in this battle of one against the other.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rather excited to rise today. It is always a pleasure to talk about the environment in the House, especially since I was a member of an Ecosphere fair on the environment for more than 10 years.

I ended up there when I was working for Christian Ouellet, whose work inspired me. I tip my hat to him. As an MP, he was the Bloc Québécois deputy critic for the environment and natural resources. I did a lot of research for him for studies on all sorts of environmental aspects when I was working on Parliament Hill. Whenever we talk about the environment, the diversity of what we might find always strikes us. It affects so many aspects of our lives.

When I agreed to be an administrator for the Ecosphere fair at the time, I found it really interesting how that helped me see the impact that common household items and personal use items have on the environment. There is a lot of talk about microplastics, construction and renovation materials, what we use for transportation, as well as all the new technology for green vehicles. This touches a very large area of activity. It also gave me the opportunity, over many years, to have many conversations and to attend many conferences on the topic.

That said, today I rise to speak to Bill S-5 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I will start by saying that we are in favour of the principle of this bill. However, the Bloc Québécois deems that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and our Quebec territory. That was brought up earlier during questions and comments, and my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île also said it, rather eloquently: On April 13, 2022, parliamentarians from all parties in Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asserting the primacy of Quebec’s jurisdiction over the environment. Elected representatives in Quebec unanimously oppose any federal government intervention in environmental matters in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position and strongly advocates for the interests and values of Quebec in the federal political arena. For us, that is really crucial, particularly as we have nothing to learn from the federal government when it comes to the environment. Quebec really has a great reputation, as I said. I realized that when working for the former member for Brome—Missisquoi, a great environmentalist who travelled internationally to represent Quebec in green architecture. We even have an international reputation when it comes to environmental matters.

That said, under our current laws, the federal government has certain environmental protection responsibilities. The Bloc Québécois will do everything in its power to ensure that the federal government properly carries out its duties. That obviously involves updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. This is a necessary legislative modernization, and we will give it all the attention it deserves.

We want to point out that Bill S-5 does not constitute a comprehensive review of the CEPA. In fact, not all parts of the act are covered by Bill S-5. The bill includes many elements that are particularly technical, but I will not go there today. Those elements merit serious study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I think that my colleague from Repentigny, who is on that committee, will do excellent work, supported by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. Together, I am sure they will do a great job on this file. We really want those members to do this work as part of the committee to ensure that the modernized law will truly allow the federal government to fulfill its environmental protection responsibilities, while respecting Quebec’s environmental sovereignty.

The Bloc Québécois has been critical of some of the partisan claims inserted into Bill S-5. We are not fooled by the Liberal government's claim that modernizing the act creates the right to a healthy environment. That is absolutely not the case, even according to the senior public servants who presented Bill S-5 to parliamentarians when it was tabled. First, it should be noted that all the sections pertaining to the right to a healthy environment and to vulnerable populations are found in CEPA's preamble. Their scope is that of the act itself. 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, although that is the crucial point and what more and more people are calling for.

If the government were serious about creating a new right and had any political courage at all, it would propose that the federation partners hold a round of constitutional negotiations to include this right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Since 2006, Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has stated: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved”. Once again, Quebec is a trailblazer.

Unlike CEPA, the Quebec charter, in Quebec's political context, is quasi-constitutional in scope. This is not insignificant. Clearly, Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect the fundamental rights of Quebeckers.

When it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. Just look at Bay du Nord, for one thing. Look at all the money the federal government is putting into the oil sands. Look at any number of issues. While Quebec is trying move away from oil, put money into a green transition, and support workers, the federal government continues to invest in all these fossil fuels.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois does want to work with all parliamentarians on chemicals management, the list of toxic substances, improved risk management accountability, comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects of substances, and mandatory labelling requirements to ensure that the repealed act reflects, to the greatest possible extent, the recommendations of stakeholders such as environmental health protection groups and chemical industry partners.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be absolutely vigilant in its study of the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. Bill S‑5, which amends the 1999 Canadian act, makes related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and repeals the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Marc Gold and went through first reading on February 9, 2022. It is now at second reading, which began on March 1, 2022.

Perhaps the bill does seek to strengthen environmental protection for a healthier Canada, but as I said, it lacks teeth. It lacks something that Quebec has already. The bill is identical to Bill C-28, which was introduced by the environment minister and received first reading on April 13, 2021, before dying on the Order Paper on August 15, 2021, when the 43rd Parliament was dissolved. That brings us back to the impacts of the 2021 election. How many bills died on the Order Paper just for vote-seeking reasons? This bill did, but many others did too. I have risen in the House often to speak out against that election, which traded four quarters for a dollar at a great cost to taxpayers.

If the government were serious about its desire to get things done, it would not always be holding up the work. In August 2020, when it decided to prorogue the House, many reports were shelved, including the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on how the COVID-19 pandemic affected women. The 2021 election also resulted in a lot of reports being shelved. We see that there have been delays in far too many areas.

The bill is identical to Bill C‑28, as I said. This bill, which amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is divided into 12 parts. We could come back to it in a much more precise way, but it is also important to mention that in 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development published a report containing 87 recommendations, including the following: recognize and enforce the right to a healthy environment, address exposures of vulnerable populations to toxic substances, and recognize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government dragged its feet on this UN declaration for far too long. Canada was one of the last countries to sign on. It is really sad.

My time is running out. I had so much more to say, but I will just add that on the weekend, I met with Thibault Rehn, from Vigilance OGM. He was proud of the work the Bloc Québécois is doing in denouncing all this and calling for better traceability.

He also told me how proud it makes him to hear us talk about what we eat, what we put in our bodies, the work of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the work of the Bloc Québécois in general when it comes to the environment. I realize that I get fired up when I talk about the environment, I could have said a lot more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time is up. I tried to give the member a little more time, but we have to give the other speakers time too.

Moving on to questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, some members, from the Bloc in particular, make reference to provincial and national jurisdictional responsibilities. I think for some issues, it does not matter what part of the region we are from. We recognize that different levels of government need to come together for our communities to benefit as a whole. The environment is one of those issues.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on how important it is, whether we are in a rural municipality in Quebec, in the city of Montreal, in the province or in Ottawa, for us to work together for the betterment of Canada and for the environment?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, it always surprises me to hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about the division of power, about what falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, as I see it, and under federal jurisdiction, as he sees it.

I have said this before, but I want to say it again for his sake. This issue has to be as non-partisan as possible because everyone has the right to a healthy environment. The problem is that the Liberals and the Conservatives politicize this issue far too often. I would even go so far as to say that the federal government has nothing to teach us. So much of what Liberal Party members do is greenwashing.