Bill S-5 (Historical)

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 .

Government Business No. 20—Proceedings on Bill C‑31

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

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise and talk about a really important issue, an issue that affects children in every region of our country. It is interesting that during this debate, the Conservative Party is trying to give a false impression. If we listened to the Conservatives, we would think there is no need for the program, that in most of the provinces, there is not a problem for children under the age of 12, that we should not worry because programs are in place. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of the day, there are children in every region of our country who will benefit from Bill C-31.

I understand Bloc members at times are a little confused and it seems they do not support the motion we are debating now, but I think they are going to support the legislation. The Conservatives, on the other hand, do not support the motion and do not support the legislation. There is a big difference. If we did not bring forward this motion, the bill would not pass in a timely fashion. As my colleague mentioned, if we left it up to the Conservative Party, the 11-year-olds and 12-year-olds today would have no chance to put in a claim.

The Conservative Party understands how important it is, from its perspective, to filibuster to prevent legislation from passing. What we are debating now is not Bill C-31. We are debating the process that we have to put into place to allow Bill C-31 to see the light of day, to allow it to get to committee. That is what this resolution is all about.

Earlier this morning when the House started, we saw the types of tactics the Conservative Party used. It moved concurrence in a committee report in order to kill three hours of government business time so that we would not be talking about the environment, because the Conservatives do not care about the environment. That is the reality. The Conservatives do not want to debate Bill S-5 and now they have come up with a way to prevent it from happening.

The motion we brought forward is supported by the New Democratic Party for good reason. Because of this motion, Canadians from coast to coast to coast can be assured there eventually will be a dental plan, but first the bill has to get through committee, report stage, third reading and through the Senate. However, at the very least, we are seeing some forward movement on the legislation, which I believe is a very strong, positive thing.

The member for Abbotsford talked about health outcomes. This legislation is about health outcomes. Whether people are from British Columbia, as the member for Abbotsford is, P.E.I. or Manitoba and every other jurisdiction in Canada, there are children in need of the type of dental program that this legislation would provide. By denying them the opportunity to have this kind of benefit, children will not get the dental work that is necessary and, as a direct result, will often be taking up emergency room spots in our hospital facilities.

The member for Regina—Lewvan talked about working with the provinces on health care. I would suggest that the member talk to some of the provinces and look at some of the issues facing health care today. One of those issues is backlogs for surgeries and so forth. He should check out the number of spaces in emergency rooms.

When we talk about healthy outcomes, it is more than just putting smiles on kids who are under 12 and supporting children with a dental program. It is also going to help seniors who need hip replacements and individuals who need to use emergency services, in particular our children's services, such as the children's hospital at the Health Sciences Centre. These are the types of things that, when we look at Bill C-31 and we want to talk about health outcomes, have to be factored in.

The member for Abbotsford talked about how we should put the legislation to the side for now because of the issue with inflation, or there was talk about other programs. That is what the member for Abbotsford said. We need to read what it is he said. At the end of the day, he did not believe we could bring forward this program. He wants to show that we are treating the issue of inflation in an appropriate fashion.

Need I remind the former critic for finance, the member for Abbotsford, to compare Canada's inflation rate to other countries around the world? At the end of the day, what we will find, whether it is the United States, England or most European Union countries, is that Canada's inflation rate is lower.

When the member talks about dealing with inflation, we are dealing with inflation in other legislation. On one of the pieces of legislation, Bill C-30, the member for Abbotsford actually voted in favour. That is dealing with inflation. We are saying we are going to increase the rebate for the GST. That would put cash in 11 million Canadians' pockets. That would put money in our communities, whether it is Abbotsford or Winnipeg North. That would help Canadians in a real and tangible way.

I have to be honest here. To the Conservatives' credit, they did flip-flop. Originally they opposed it, but they did come and support the bill and I am grateful to the Conservative Party for realizing that.

I say that because people could be somewhat encouraged by it. I would like to suggest to the Conservative Party that it do likewise for this bill. If I was to request hands up on the Conservative benches from those MPs who believe that not one of their constituents would benefit from the dental plan and not one of their constituents would benefit from the rent subsidy, they could show me a hand or stand up on a point of order and make that statement, but not one of them will raise a hand.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, from the beginning of the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has been impugning the motives of the official opposition and telling us that this is not the right time. He questions the timeliness of such a debate this morning.

However, I am not hearing much from him on the substance of the issue. Maybe my colleague could help him reflect on the substance of the question.

Paragraph (c) states that we “call on the Government of Canada to develop measures to support Russian dissidents”.

Maybe my colleague could give us a number of measures that might inspire the government to resolve the matter and allow us to move on to other things, namely the debate on Bill S‑5.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member where the leadership is from the Conservative Party. If this is such a burning issue, as the member tried to portray, why did the Conservatives not bring it up in the form of an emergency debate? Why not work with the government on having a take-note debate? Why not have an opposition day motion?

Why wait for the morning we are supposed to be debating the environment and Bill S-5, an important piece of legislation? This would have been the second day of debate on the bill, yet the Conservative Party today says that this motion is important. For the Government of Canada, the issue has always been important. The Conservative Party, on the other hand, chose today for it, a day when we were going to debate the environment, something it does not support, and the environmental legislation that would make our environment a better place for all Canadians. Why?

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

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in the sense that the Conservatives had options. They could have suggested an emergency debate. They could have suggested a take-note debate. They could have used an opposition day. There are all sorts of alternatives to deal with the issue they brought forward this morning. It would appear that they did not want to see Bill S-5 debated.

Why is the Conservative Party so upset with the fact that Canadians want to see action on the environment? The Conservative Party persists in preventing debate on Bill S-5, which is up for the first time. Instead, it brings this motion.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this motion, though my reason for being in the House this morning was to get up and speak to Bill S-5. There will be time for that, obviously, a little later on.

I have been listening intently to the words of all members in the House, and it is obvious that all of us, all Canadians, are profoundly scandalized by the war crimes that we have witnessed through the news. We are scandalized by the disregard for the international order that has been displayed by Vladimir Putin and those who are working with him to carry on this illegal invasion of a peace-loving country that seeks only democracy and freedom.

We are all profoundly scandalized by what is going on. We live here in a free land. We live in a land that is essentially free of violence, and it is certainly free of persecution. While we understand and are repelled by what is going on, we are really seeing it through the intermediary of the news, of the TV news and of the newspapers that we read. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be living in a war zone.

I know that when President Zelenskyy spoke to us a few months ago, he tried to bring it home to us by asking us to reflect on what it would be like if we were living in downtown Toronto, like many MPs here live in downtown Toronto, and one morning we woke to the sound of bombardment bringing down structures as iconic as the CN Tower and whatnot.

He asked us to reflect on what that would be like. How would we explain that to our children, who would be completely perplexed and puzzled and fearful? I think that was a very important approach that President Zelenskyy employed to make us try to understand what it is like on the ground. I do not think we really can, but we are seeking to understand, and even though we are not on the ground, we are no less disgusted and repelled by what Vladimir Putin has done.

My generation never thought we would ever see another war in Europe. We thought that the First World War and the Second World War had driven home the point that conflict can lead only to mass suffering and destruction and all kinds of economic and human pain. We never thought we would see the day, but obviously this has taught us all, in some way, a lesson, a lesson that I think veterans understand.

I know we are approaching Remembrance Day and we go to Remembrance Day events and reflect on the past and on past sacrifices. We underscore the sacrifice of those who fought for liberty, but somehow we always think that this was something from the past, which it was, but also that it was something that would never recur, at least not in a European context.

I was reflecting on Remembrance Day just the other day, because it is coming up and we will all be asked, most likely, to speak at ceremonies. I was thinking about how the context of this year is so different, because we will not be thinking just of past sacrifices; we will not be thinking just of all that veterans have done to protect our freedom and our democracy. I think we will look at their message in a different light. Yes, there is the sacrifice, but the veterans are also sending us a message.

They are saying that they understand something that maybe not everyone understands for not having been through war, that authoritarianism has not disappeared. The impulse toward authoritarianism has not disappeared. Authoritarianism can raise its ugly head very quickly, even in Europe and even though we never thought we would ever see that day. I think there is a special, additional meaning to Remembrance Day this year, which is that we have to be on guard against authoritarianism.

We should be grateful that there are many courageous individuals who volunteer for the armed forces, knowing that they are making sacrifices just by being in the armed forces but also that they may be called upon to make great sacrifices at times of conflict. As we know, our Canadian military is helping out over in Europe, offering training to Ukrainians.

The thing about authoritarianism is that it can be defeated through military action. We saw that in World War II. The military action of the allies was particularly effective. However, there is another element that is required to defeat authoritarianism, and that is dissidence from within. I marvel at those who stand up to authoritarian regimes, whether it be in Iran or those who are protesting in Moscow and no doubt throughout Russia. I do not know what it means to fear that what I say would provoke a violent reaction against me and my family.

We all get up and say things about other members. We criticize their positions and we even use a little humour sometimes to put down the point of view of the other, but we never walk out of this place thinking we are the target for somebody now. This is true of our entire society. We can stand up to political leaders, and people do it all the time. We can mock political leaders and we can satirize political leaders, and so on and so forth, without ever having any fear of retribution. This is something that should be underscored, because there are people putting their lives on the line to stand up to people like Vladimir Putin and to stand up to the Iranian regime, knowing that they could wind up behind bars in what I would say are some very awful conditions that would be foreign to incarceration in our own country.

It is very important that we salute the dissidents. As I think of dissidents, many in the House are probably too young to remember the stature that a dissident like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had all over the world, but especially in North America. I remember how former President Carter and his wife, Rosalynn Carter, embraced Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his cause, and how he had the courage to write things that Soviet authorities were not too pleased with, and he paid the price.

This is someone who was actually in the military himself. He was a military person who had fought in the war, but he saw certain things that he did not agree with and he wrote about them in an eloquent manner, and in a voluminous manner. His books were very large tomes, whether we are talking about the Gulag Archipelago or others, like Cancer Ward. The west stood up for him.

It is very important that we stand up, not only that we stand up against Vladimir Putin's military machine, but that we stand up for dissidents and that we do so through the sanctions that we apply and that keep coming. I would like to underscore that fact. We have imposed sanctions on oligarchs, on members of the Putin regime, but they have been successive. They have not stopped after one round of sanctions. The foreign affairs minister has announced multiple rounds of sanctions, and I suspect there are many more rounds to come. We have done the same against the brutal authoritarian dictatorship in Iran.

We need to stand up for the dissidents, and one way of doing so is through sanctions. I would like to say how fortunate our government is, not just the government but Parliament is, our country is, to have as an adviser someone whom I and the member for Winnipeg North sat with in this House, the Hon. Irwin Cotler. He devoted his life to standing up for persecuted dissidents, specifically but not exclusively by any means, in the Soviet Union.

To know that there is wisdom being communicated from the Hon. Irwin Cotler to this Parliament and to this government personally reassures me as a parliamentarian and also as a Canadian. We are very fortunate to have someone like Irwin Cotler providing his perspective and his advice on how we can support dissidents and how we can stand up to Vladimir Putin.

As a matter of fact, if I recall, so courageous was Irwin Cotler that he went to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, and I believe he was poisoned while he was there. I do not know if that was the official news or headline, but I remember him saying that something was happening, that he was not feeling well and that it was not just the garden variety of food poisoning. I do not know more about that situation, but I seem to recall hearing or reading about it. We are very fortunate to have the Hon. Irwin Cotler who, of course, has been an advocate for the Magnitsky Law and so on.

However, I think Canada is doing its part by supporting Ukraine militarily, but it is also doing its part by targeting those who would be part of the machines, mechanisms or apparatus of repression that are targeting, no doubt, dissidents in both Russia and Iran.

With that, I will now take questions as best I can on a very difficult topic.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the manner in which the member has raised the issue of Vladimir Kara-Murza as a noteworthy individual. We should be stating his name, perhaps even in a wonderful unanimous consent motion. Maybe the member could possibly give that some consideration.

I know how sensitive the NDP is on the environmental file. We were supposed to be debating Bill S-5 today. There were other opportunities in which this debate could have been facilitated. Could she comment on whether we are losing out because we are not debating this important legislation today?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would think, given we have another motion coming up to pass other legislation, if the member is quite prepared to support that motion, then we could maybe consider doing Bill S-5. Better yet, why does the member not—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Based on the comments of the parliamentary secretary, I suspect there would be unanimous consent of the House to agree that Bill S-5 be called for debate immediately after question period today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the biggest option that the government has to deal with Bill S-5 is to bring forward the legislation at its earliest opportune time. For example, we are still trying to get the disability legislation through the House. We are also still trying to get through the rental subsidy legislation.

This type of legislation is absolutely critical and will likely continue to require support from other opposition parties for the government to get it through. I suspect that, given the resistance from the Conservative Party today on Bill S-5, we will likely be requiring some opposition parties' support to do so.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, given we are on the topic now, it is important to mention that the word “climate” is not in Bill S-5 even once. The term “greenhouse gas” is also not in Bill S-5.

If the member for Winnipeg North is serious about moving forward with Bill S-5's improvements to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, can he reflect on other options that might also be available to the governing party to do so?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague raises very good points on both accounts. There is a fear factor within the Conservative Party. They tend to want to shy away from anything related to the environment.

In regards to the legislative agenda, when we stop and think about it, the member is right on. With respect to Bill S-5, the Senate has put in a great deal of effort and working with the government, we now have a substantial piece of legislation that we could and should be debating. One of the reasons why the government was not in a position is because we had to deal with legislation, such as Bill C-31, Bill C-30, Bill C-22, all of which are there to put more disposable income in the pockets of Canadians.

Over 11 million Canadians benefit from those three pieces of legislation, and some of it has been very difficult to get through the House because the Conservative Party does not want them to pass. They take up the time of the House to prevent the government from getting some of this important legislation done. That is why I spent as much time out of my 20 minutes refreshing the back benches of the Conservative Party on why they should not be doing this concurrence motion. They should have allowed the debate on Bill S-5. That is what would have been good for Canadians today.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it has been implied that somehow the government was not giving priority to Bill S-5. However, we introduced it in the Senate to make it go faster because—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is quite a list I could go through, whether it would be recognizing that every individual in Canada has the right to a healthy environment as provided under the act, or that the Government of Canada must protect the rights as provided under the act and, in so doing, may balance the right with relevant factors.

If I could be granted another 20 minutes, and I could ask for leave, I would be happy to speak about our environment and go into details on this. However, I suspect the Conservative Party would not allow us to go into debate on Bill S-5. I would ask if it would be okay for me to continue to speak on Bill S-5, as I would be happy to do so.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am always in awe at how the member for Winnipeg North manages to make a master class out of indignation in his remarks.

I will say that I share his dismay that we are not talking about Bill S-5. It is a bill that is of interest to folks in northwest B.C., especially an organization called Douglas Channel Watch. It is very interested in this idea of the right to a healthy environment.

The member did spend much of his remarks talking about Bill S-5 and the environment, so I thought I would ask, which amendments to the Environmental Protection Act does he find the most compelling?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member helps me make my case.

Bill C-31 would provide dental care for children under the age of 12. If we did not bring the motion forward, between the Bloc and the Conservatives, the bill would never pass. The Conservatives were prepared to filibuster it.

What do members think Bill S-5 is all about? It is on the environment, and the Conservatives are sending a very strong message. The message is that they do not want to talk about the environment and they do not want legislation on the environment. That is why they have brought in the concurrence motion.

The two of them are tied together. They are both methods the government needs to get legislation through the House. The Bloc needs to understand why we got the support from the NDP to get Bill C-31 through. Maybe they should give us the support for Bill S-5. I do not think the Conservatives are going to help us. I would like to think the Bloc could be sensitive and caring about our environment.