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

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

Madam Speaker, I seem to recall that there is a continent of plastic currently floating in the Pacific Ocean. Sea creatures sometimes ingest bits of it, which end up in our food. We eat animals that eat things that are not necessarily good for our health.

First nations are also affected because a large part of their diet consists of food that comes directly from the sea. We must be mindful of our environment and take care of it. By doing so, we take care of ourselves.

I hope my colleague will convey my sincere condolences to the family of the hereditary chiefs.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are times when we all wish that certain legislation was unnecessary. Certainly, that is true for this bill, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

It would be so nice to live in a world where there was no need for laws to protect the environment because everyone, individuals and corporations, understood their responsibilities and acted accordingly. However, we live in the real world, which means there is a need for legislators to enact laws to ensure that what should come naturally does indeed take place.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members opposite for their concern for our environment. Although there are times when we differ on the best methods of doing that, I know they have a deep concern for the future of the planet, one that is shared by me and my colleagues.

As we discuss the bill today, I hope that my contribution will be taken in the spirit in which it is given. Perhaps no legislation is perfect, but I am hopeful this bill, which has seen several revisions in the Senate, can be further improved by the contributions of members of the House.

The role of government is to protect citizens. None of us would dispute that. Bill S-5 recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and that the federal government has a responsibility to protect that right. That right is not defined in the act, which may give some people cause for concern, but it is good to know that the government has not forgotten the importance of the definition and that it is still to come. I hope we will see it later on.

I am surprised the minister needed two years to develop an implementation framework for how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of this bill, balanced with social, economic, health, scientific and other relevant factors, but I would rather that he take the time to get it right. Too often it seems the current government has acted hastily, to the regret of the Canadian people, so I will not complain about the delay in this case, although I should point out that the minister has had plenty of time to consider it, given that the government introduced it in the last Parliament but failed to make its passage a priority unfortunately.

What worries me is that the current government has a habit of making pronouncements that highlight its environmental plans but does not follow through. I am hoping this time it means what it says.

We all know that the Liberal government has yet to meet a single carbon emissions reduction target it has set for itself. That is nothing new. It is true. It talks about climate change, using words like “crisis” and “emergency”, but then acts as if it does not believe its own words. In fact, carbon emissions have gone up under the current Liberal government. It cannot deny it and it will not deny it.

The carbon tax is an absolute failure. Not only has it not reduced emissions, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that the majority of Canadians actually pay more in carbon taxes than they collect in rebates. So far this year, the commissioner of the environment has released 10 reports on the performance of the current Liberal government with respect to the protection of the environment. More than half of the reports showed that the government was failing to meet its targets.

It could be said that this legislation is long overdue. The last major revision to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was more than 20 years ago. It goes back to 1999 under Prime Minister Chrétien. We know so much more today about climate change than we did then and about the need for action and making a meaningful effort.

This legislation would modernize the chemicals management plan in Canada. It is hard to see how anyone would disagree with that objective. Taking a risk-based approach to chemicals management is something I feel has broad-based support.

I am so pleased to see the efforts to remove unnecessary red tape from our environmental regulations. All too often, it seems the goal of the government is to make life more difficult for Canadians as individuals and for Canadian businesses. It will probably surprise many people to see that sometimes the Liberals actually take the effects of their legislation into consideration.

This bill is, I am sure, not the only legislation we will see from the government designed to strengthen environmental protection on behalf of the Canadian people. It stresses chemicals management and toxic substances, which are not the only areas of environmental protection that are concerning to Canadians.

I seem to remember the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, several years ago, made recommendations regarding national standards for clean air and clean water. Perhaps those will be included when the minister tells us exactly what is meant by Canadians having a right to a healthy environment. Certainly, one would think clean air and clean water would be essential to that.

As this bill goes next to the committee stage for further study before being brought back to the House, it would be well to consider what we would like the legislation to accomplish. As I stated previously, we are in the House committed to protecting our environment. Canada is the envy of the world for our clean water, our clean air and the natural beauty of our country. We are all committed as parliamentarians to ensuring future generations enjoy the same healthy environment we have today. Our legacy will be defined by how, and only by how, we treat the planet that has been entrusted to us.

There seems to be general agreement that 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 this bill do not go as far as some of us would have liked to see, and that is understandable.

When this bill was examined by the Senate, it was subject to considerable amendments before it was passed and given to us for consideration. Some of those amendments make sense to me. Other suggestions, such as removing the word “cost” from “cost-effective” in the precautionary principle, would seem to me to be in need of more discussion.

I understand whatever form this bill finally takes, it will not be as all-encompassing as some would hope. The reality is that rarely, if ever, we will find a perfect piece of legislation. I would respectfully suggest perfection is even less likely when dealing with the offerings of the Liberal government. However, in this case, it seems to have addressed a need. I look forward to taking questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been asking a considerable number of questions today regarding the Conservative Party's approach and not wanting to pass it to the committee stage but rather debate it, so the member is already aware of my concern about that.

The other concern I have is the Conservatives' feeling in principle that they do not need to share with or tell Canadians what their policy is on the environment. Many believe that many Conservatives are, in fact, climate deniers. They do not recognize climate change. It is amplified by their positioning on the price on pollution. One day they were in favour of it, yet lately they are against it.

I am wondering if my friend could indicate whether, on such an important piece of legislation, the Conservative Party actually has a plan on climate? If he does, I would be more than happy to provide the leave necessary so he could expand upon it.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I indicated that we are supporting this bill going to the committee stage, which we believe is very important and worthwhile.

As far as policy, I do not think the government has a plan for the environment. The government has a plan for taxation. That is exactly what the government has. It has not hit even one single target that it has been boasting about for the last seven years and beyond.

The Liberals should give us a break and stop questioning others when they are not performing on their own. Let us see the results they could generate as a government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping my colleague can explain something.

He mentioned in his speech that he is very concerned about water quality, air quality and the environment. That sounds wonderful, but his words ring hollow when I think of his party's desire to expand the oil industry. The Conservative Party may not have the best record when it comes to the environment.

Can my colleague explain how he reconciles these two things?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the same note, there is going to be a time, as I indicated in my speech, when we all have concerns about the environment. No one has more concerns than others in that competition toward a better environment, clean water.

I am surprised to hear the question from Quebec, where sewage is being dropped in the rivers in Quebec. Where is the Bloc Québécois on that? Why have they never raised that in the House of Commons? Why are they trying to question the Conservative Party on our vision and our belief in a better environment, cleaner water and cleaner air?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this bill does not address ambient air quality standards, even though air pollution contributes to over 15,000 deaths in Canada each year and air pollution is likely one of the most common ways that the right to a healthy environment would be violated.

Would the member support including requirements that the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment include actions that the minister would take when ambient air quality standards are exceeded?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill is not perfect. We would like to see it perfect coming out of the committee, after all the amendments that would take place.

I also spoke about how there is no definition for rights in the bill, as far as environment, water and clean air. The bill is yet to be perfect. I hope that, through the committee and through consultation, we would get a nice piece of legislation that would really help Canadians. We could make it what it is meant to be.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to clarify some constitutional elements that have been misunderstood in the debate so far today.

I have heard a number of Conservative MPs say that somehow this involves the Criminal Code. I want to clarify this really forcefully: I have a lot of problems with this bill, but it does not involve the Criminal Code. It involves the head of powers, the criminal law powers, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada back in the Hydro-Québec case. The government is entitled to legislate to protect Canadians from toxic substances and others that threaten our health. It does not involve criminality in the sense of the Criminal Code.

If my hon. colleague has any comments, I would welcome them.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have thought the Green Party has been silent on the environmental policies, and I would like to see more coming from its side.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and other legislation.

This initiative is welcomed because the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since 1999, and much has happened since then. I do not want to overstate the significance of what is going on here. This draft bill streamlines a program that is already in place and has been working effectively for many years. This is more about the administration of a program than bold, new ideas about the environment.

I want to talk about a couple positive things with this draft legislation. The preamble of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would read, “every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment”. The preamble of the legislation would also recognize, “the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.

We have no arguments with these broad, aspirational statements, but that is what they are. They are broad, aspirational statements. There is nothing in the bill that gives substance to these statements. In fact, we are going to have to wait two years to see the government's implementation framework to see what the government considers to be a healthy environment.

This is typical Liberal Party virtue signalling. It is devoid of substance. This is what Canadians have learned to expect of the Liberal Party: lofty words with little substance.

Another positive thing in this bill is that the government listened to stakeholders, and that is always welcomed. There were experts were familiar with the benefits and risks of chemicals used in the everyday life of Canadians. Toxic substances need to be used in a safe manner, and we need to listen to experts. Bill S-5 preserves the risk-based approach to chemical management as opposed to the hazard-based approach. My understanding of the distinction is that the preferred risk-based approach focuses on actual outcomes. It does a risk-benefit analysis.

Clearly, not all hazards can be removed out of our lives, but they can be managed, and that is what this bill does. That is a good thing, and we accept that. The bill also continues the tradition of being fact-based and evidence-based. We need to follow the science, use a precautionary principle, and make decisions based on the best evidence available at the time. Generally, we accept these principles. All government decisions should be based on facts, not on ideology. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has a fairly poor record.

For example, if we take Bill C-21, which is the bill that would ban all handguns in Canada, that bill is being studied at the public safety committee right now. The public safety committee has just finished a study on reducing gun and gang violence in Canada. We heard from more than 40 witnesses who are experts in the field, and not one of them said that the problem was handguns owned by lawful gun owners.

As a matter of fact, what we were told was that the vast majority of guns and firearms used in crime in Canada were smuggled in from the United States of America. The U.S. is the largest gun manufacturing economy in the world, with whom we share the largest undefended border with in the world. Admittedly, this creates a big problem for Canadians, but taking the frustrations out on lawful gun owners is not the solution to this problem.

Wanting to stay positive, I am now going to turn to the Conservative Party's record on the environment. It is well known that Canada's most successful pro-environmental prime minister was the Conservative, Brian Mulroney. In the 1980s, acid rain was a big problem in both Canada and the U.S. Our great lakes were dying off. The environment was suffering. Fish stocks were in decline.

Mr. Mulroney claims that his biggest and proudest achievement was the Canada-U.S. air quality agreement, which finally broke the back of acid rain. This achievement was not about virtue signalling. It was about achieving real, measurable results. It took real effort. It took co-operation with our neighbours. It took political will and stamina. It took the common-sense approach that Conservatives prefer.

We understand that global climate change is in fact global. We need to work with our allies, our trading partners and all peoples on this planet, as we did with the acid rain agreement.

Take plastics, for example. With the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the bill we are talking about today, plastic manufactured items would be listed as toxic. We knew this was coming, and here is what our Conservative Party campaign platform from last year contained: “To meaningfully contribute to tackling ocean plastic, we must recognize that plastic is a global problem”. Further on, our platform said, “The current government’s approach has been heavy on slogans but light on action. Declaring plastics ‘toxic’ isn’t helping our environment but is driving jobs out of Canada.” Again, this is common sense, not the flash and bang that we learned in a high school drama class. Let us get down and do the work.

The same goes for the Liberal Party's carbon tax, which ignores the international threats to our global environment. The Liberals want Canada to produce less carbon, so their solutions is to leave our natural resources in the ground and let other countries rack up carbon debits, to produce less natural gas and let Russia fill the void in Europe and to produce less oil and make Saudi Arabia and Venezuela happy.

It would be one thing if the Liberals' version of a price on pollution actually had the desired effect, but despite a lot of pious talk on emission reductions, Canada is falling further behind. Now the Liberals are going to triple the carbon tax. How high does it have to go before we will actually start to see our emissions come down? Maybe in a few years' time we are going to see what effect the tripling had. Maybe it is going to have to be tripled again after that. Canada is a big and cold country. We are going to consume energy just to survive and operate.

More and more people, admittedly, live in urban ridings and can take public transit, like those in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, where I am very happy to say the squeaky wheel got the grease and we got a commitment that the SkyTrain will come to Langley. However, many people living in rural areas simply do not have that choice. Ask a family in rural B.C. if they will pull their kids out of hockey because the price of gas is too high. Of course they will not. They will take the pickup truck, see the price at the pumps and be reminded why they are so irritated by the federal government. Then they will drive the 100 kilometres to a hockey tournament. This is what we do. This is how we live.

I want to end on a positive note. I will be supporting this draft bill, not because I support the government's failed environmental program but because the bill would streamline the administration of an important part of the federal government's work, namely the management of risks and hazards in our natural environment. We all want a healthy environment, and the Conservatives like the idea of things being managed in the most efficient way possible. This modest bill is a step in the right direction.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and ask my colleague some questions about his speech today.

There are a couple of things. I am really glad that he brought up the environmental record of the Conservatives back in the nineties. It was really strong, and it continues to be probably the strongest Conservative environmental agenda in this country, provincial or federal, ever. It begs the question: Why does the current Conservative Party neglect the environment in its platform and in its lines of questioning?

Carbon pricing is world renowned as the foundation of a policy that is forward thinking, and all of my colleagues on the other side in the Conservative Party ran on a platform of carbon pricing in the last election. However, now they seem to be railing against that foundation, despite it being a rather Conservative principle, a market-based instrument and a hallmark of many Conservative governments' platforms around the world.

I wonder why the Conservative Party continues to fight against something that is so well founded in economics while pretending to be the party of common sense and to know something about how to manage an economy.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am actually quite surprised to hear the Liberals keep promoting a price on pollution or carbon tax, because clearly it is failing. If we take a look at the graph, the number keeps going up. The government fails to meet one target after another after another. Now it is going to triple the carbon tax. Is this finally what is going to break the back? Unfortunately it is going to break the backs of many Canadians who need to rely on energy just to live in this large and northern climate.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove for his speech, in which he referred to Brian Mulroney.

I would like to hear him talk about the fact that Mr. Mulroney recently said that he no longer recognizes himself in the new version of the Conservative Party, particularly because it refused to acknowledge climate change.