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 .

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say to address the question raised by my colleague from the NDP.

Just to be very clear and very appropriate on this, I think it is a work in motion. Yes, I think that this bill addresses some issues, some specific issues, and maybe not enough for some people. That is fine. We are working forward to adapt it, to modify it and to improve it if necessary.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased I can finally say that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is going to be revised and modernized. It would be an understatement to say that it is about time.

For more than 20 years—nearly 25 years, actually—successive federal governments have not given this law the attention it needs. Canada has been doing nothing while, elsewhere in the world, environmental regulations have been implemented everywhere. We are at the report stage of Bill S-5. The door to change has opened just a crack, and we are going to have to get our foot in that door before it closes, I am afraid.

The bill first made its way through the Senate. It arrived at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development just before Christmas. Throughout 2022, I had a huge number of meetings to better understand the expectations and needs expressed by expert associations from various technical, scientific and legal fields as well as environmental protection organizations.

Not long after the 2021 elections, the Minister of Environment acknowledged that the bill to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would be the first of many. Indeed, the scope of this piece of legislation is so vast that a formal review would have been impossible without a multi-step process. The study of Bill S‑5 also confirmed the need to avoid delay in tabling the next part of the modernization, which I eagerly look forward to.

In the time I have to speak at report stage, it would be impossible to cover everything that deserves a mention. When everything seems important, choices can be difficult. Hopefully, I will get an opportunity to discuss other aspects at third reading.

To get right down to business, I wish to talk about the right to a healthy environment. The scope of application of the clauses on the right to a healthy environment does not extend beyond the boundaries of the act itself. They have no impact on other Canadian statutes. If protecting this right is added on to the federal government’s mission, the amendments will not necessarily create a genuine, fundamental right to live in a healthy environment, which would have been a good thing. This was confirmed unequivocally by senior officials appearing before the Senate committee and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

This right will have to be balanced by what is defined in the legislation as reasonable limits and socio-economic factors. We will have to wait for the implementation framework. When I say the door is only open a crack, that is an example.

No one is against virtue, but we have to tell it like it is. This is a step forward—although a cautious and very strictly regulated one—that will not necessarily give citizens more rights to go before the courts and ask for sanctions for projects or situations that harm the environment. I want to commend my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the rigorous amendments that she introduced in committee but that unfortunately were rejected.

Another point I wanted to make is that there has been no progress at all on pollution prevention plans, or PPPs. PPPs should be considered as a centerpiece of the environmental legal framework, a pillar even. A few years before the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, received royal assent, the environment committee of the time said, and I quote, “the Committee believes that pollution prevention should be the priority approach to environmental protection. In addition, the Committee firmly believes that CEPA should provide a key legislative base for promoting pollution prevention in Canada. ...a major shift in emphasis is required in the legislation, from managing pollution after it has been created to preventing pollution in the first place. We believe that pollution prevention will avoid, eliminate and reduce more pollution than ‘react and cure’ strategies”.

This excerpt dates back to 1995. Requiring planning for the prevention of pollution was important 25 years ago, and so just imagine what it should be today. I am saying today, because the opportunity to address the inertia of the past two decades with respect to pollution control standards based on prevention and leading to strict management of risks and dangers was within reach.

Members know that I have an interest in human health and its links to the environment. In medicine, it is often said, and quite rightly, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That can also be said about environmental pollution. Prevention, whether of illness or pollution, has to be planned.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association made this a key recommendation, one that was supported by several organizations and experts in environmental law. These experts were invited to testify at both the Senate and House of Commons committees.

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources was able to craft an amendment that rallied all its members. When Bill S-5 was sent to the lower chamber, the majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development wanted to set it aside, to discard it. They voted against it.

Focusing the content of Bill S‑5 on principles to manage pollution and not prevent it is to give in to the wishes of the industry to continue heading in a less restrictive direction.

A minute ago I was saying that addressing the inertia was within reach. That is true, because the science and knowledge about the environment and the effects of toxic substances on the environment and on our health have grown over the past 25 years.

Experts who have studied and analyzed the regulatory system, from both a technical and legal perspective, have submitted recommendations and testified in the Senate and in committee. We were not short on resources. We had resources that could help us learn about what is happening elsewhere, to fully grasp what could truly structure progress and to offer hope that this review would be fruitful.

The industry's input prevailed when it came time to talk about the regulatory framework on toxic substances. More broadly, the industry wanted to see a legislative measure that was not overly burdensome. Some might say that is obvious.

That being said, I do not deny that listening to industry is essential for a host of good reasons. However, when the dominant narrative from the industry is inflexible and the industry seems to be wiping its feet on environmental considerations and human health just to maintain the status quo, I start to get annoyed—and I think that is an understatement.

We know that between 2006 and 2020, there was an impressive reduction in the quantity of toxic substances that were released into the air, a decline of 60%.

That said, every rose has its thorn. We also know that during the same period, land-based toxic releases, both intentional and accidental, jumped by more than 50%. They are turning their backs on analyses and facts.

Like it or not, the government has severely undermined the excellent amendments put forward by the Senate, Green Party, NDP and Bloc Québécois that relate to the consultation and public participation processes. They are turning their backs on transparency.

High-level experts pointed us in the direction of essential regulatory updates, yet the Liberal-Conservative coalition chose to support industry. They are turning their backs on balance.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois understands that environmental policy requires trade-offs between health and environmental protection objectives on one hand and commercial and industrial interests on the other. We understand that.

At least the door is open. To move forward with regulation, we need to be able to recognize the weaknesses and pitfalls that characterize this regime in Canada. There is some work that has been done in that regard.

The legislator needs to remember its responsibilities toward Canadians and the environment. It must not become complacent because that will serve only to promote the financial health of trade and industry, rather than protect the health of millions of people and the health of the environment.

I would like to be able to say that we have taken a small step for man and a large step for mankind, but instead, I have to say that we have taken a small step for health and environmental protection but that we look forward to making greater strides.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her work on committee. The member put forward many amendments that were similar to New Democrat amendments. Whether it was on pollution prevention planning, timelines or genetically modified organisms, I am grateful for the work that she diligently tried to push forward in committee.

We were able to strengthen some aspects of this legislation, but there are still so many gaps, and I want to ask about one of those gaps, on air quality standards. We know that the U.S. has had enforceable air quality standards for over 50 years and that over 15,000 lives are lost in Canada every year from air pollution. That is 15,000 people and families. Can the member speak to how this is a matter of life and death? These provisions are important and the government needs to do better.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria, with whom I serve in committee, for her question.

I think that the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were all united in trying to make the legislation a lot more binding and in trying to improve it. We are talking about the health of millions of people, human beings, and about the health of the environment. They are interconnected.

Thousands of people die every year. It is not something that anybody really seems to think about, but I believe, if memory serves, that 6% of the GDP, billions of dollars, go toward helping those who become ill as a result of air pollution.

Bill S‑5 was a good opportunity to improve that. I think we missed that opportunity.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member on the environment committee, for all her work on this bill, her very important work.

I have a question for the hon. member on the issue of air quality standards that our NDP colleague had raised. I know the Bloc is very sensitive to jurisdictional issues. One of the reasons we defeated the NDP amendment was that this is an area of joint jurisdiction. Our feeling as a committee was that we needed to work on this together.

I wonder if the member would have some reflections on this, particularly the sensitive issue of jurisdiction and the importance of working together to better the environment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois is quite sensitive about jurisdictions and respect for jurisdictions.

The environment is a shared jurisdiction, to some extent. When the Constitution was being written in 1867, no one was talking about the environment. Now when it comes to the environment, we have to strike a balance between what the federal government can do in terms of regulations and what Quebec and the provinces can do. It is a delicate balance.

I tried to introduce amendments to bring in the idea of respect for Quebec and provincial jurisdictions, but to no avail. I eventually gave up on the idea of getting such an amendment passed.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question.

In this afternoon's debate, we heard about the Senate amendments, which were great amendments, about collecting information on the oil sands and tailings ponds. The Liberals have opposed that amendment.

It is a little complicated, but what we are talking about is that including tailings ponds in Bill S-5 is so rudimentary and obvious that it is deeply shocking that the Liberals do not like it, because what they are proposing to change is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Could we get a question, please?

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

Madam Speaker, the question is this: Does the hon. member agree with me that the mere fact of asking for information gathering about the tailings ponds should not have provoked a reaction that it had to be removed?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, there is a lack of transparency there. The Liberal-Conservative coalition voted against every amendment that increased transparency.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is absolutely right.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and add a few thoughts regarding the bill. I know the NDP wants to focus a lot of attention on the issue of tail ponds, and I will deal with that right away, along with the members of the Green Party and, to a certain degree, even my friends in the Bloc.

I find it interesting that they are maybe playing a bit with words on the issue. It is not to take away from the seriousness of the issue. We have recognized that. I believe the member knows full well that, in good part, what she is talking about as a concern is already there and the amendment is somewhat redundant. It might make a nice social media post or something of that nature. Giving the member and those who have been speaking on it the benefit of the doubt, I will say that maybe they just do not fully understand everything that has been explained through the legislation.

It is important to recognize that information with regard to tail ponds is already being collected through CEPA. It is important for us to—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. There is a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have a long-standing tradition that debate has to be about the subject at hand, and I do not believe you will see in the legislation anything about tails, so I would ask the hon. member to stay focused on the subject.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is quite possible I missed the word “tailings”; that does happen at times. My apologies. I did not mean to offend the member.

Having said that, when we think about tailings ponds, members will find that this is covered within the current legislation. At the end of the day, I would refer the member to the amendments adopted at committee that related to the concept of vulnerable populations and cumulative effects. There are other situations that empower and allow for the minister to track and, ultimately, enforce issues related to tailings ponds. The member, I suspect, would likely be aware of that.

As I indicated, information on tailings ponds is already collected through CEPA. Members tend to give a great deal of attention to this particular issue. I know the member is anxious to ask a question, but unfortunately we are going to run out of time because I only have another minute to go.

I think one of the things we have missed is the recognition of toxic and potentially toxic chemicals. The government takes that very seriously. The right to a healthy environment is being enshrined and supported in a very real and tangible way. Canadians are very much concerned about our environment. Through this legislation, there is a direct connection that would enable Canadians to express their concerns where there will be attention drawn to that concern. That is something I really have not heard in the relatively short amount of time that we have had to debate the issue, but it is something we should be talking about.

We see our constituents growing more and more concerned about our environment. Having a statement that is very clear as to the rights of Canadians to have a healthy environment is something that is very positive. I would like to see more of a discussion the next time the bill comes up, when maybe I will get the tailings—

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.