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]

Mr. Speaker, who am I to defend the Conservatives? I can say that it would be awfully awkward when they take a look at their own party platform. We know that, as candidates, when we go knocking on doors, we are there supporting the party platform. All 338 Conservative candidates made it very clear in the last election that they do support a price on pollution.

Some members have heckled that they take it back, but hindsight is 20/20. The bottom line is that they did do a flip-flop on that. The relevance to that issue, to what we are debating today, is that, once again, we see the Conservative Party taking a flip-flop on an important piece of environmental legislation. I think that Canadians would be very disappointed, given that it includes things such as the right to a healthy environment. The Conservatives are actually going to be voting against it.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member for Winnipeg North for recognizing the more than three decades of work that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has put into environmental protection, such as what is in this bill.

He spoke about working in a collaborative fashion. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands put forward two dozen amendments, amendments that, for example, would have ensured that the so-called right to a healthy environment is not just considered. We need rights protected. That is what her amendment would have ensured. However, as with every single amendment she presented, the same thing happened. They were all voted down.

If the member for Winnipeg North believes in a collaborative approach and in the right to a healthy environment, could he speak to why the governing party did not support ensuring that the right is actually in this bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, coming from the province of Manitoba, where the Liberal Party is maybe not as strong as it could be, where we did not have party status, I often found it most effective, when working with the government members and ministers, to work alongside them, to provide suggestions, ideas and amendments and so forth. There are different ways in which one can try to get things passed through. I know there are challenges to not having party status. I faced those challenges for many years in the Manitoba legislature.

There is no doubt the committee could have given more attention to a number of the issues that the leader of the Green Party had brought forth.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Why did the Liberals flip-flop from how they voted at committee, in the collaborative environment that we had come to, on a bill that the Liberals were obviously happy with, opposing a similar NDP amendment at committee? Why did they flip-flop and betray the collaborative initiative of a committee that was endeavouring to find that right balance? Why are they prioritizing politics above the environment, industry and what is best for Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, he did not answer the question I actually posed to him, to tell us what within the tailings ponds the member is so offended by. Instead, he says that we are taking a flip-flop. He should look in a mirror.

The Conservatives are actually saying no to Bill S-5. They are going to vote against Bill S-5 because the leadership within the Conservative Party has given them that instruction. I think there are a number of Conservatives who are scratching their heads and asking why they are doing so. At the end of the day, there is no real rationale other than that the Conservative leader told them to.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Correctional Services of Canada; the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Rail Transportation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to the government's attempts to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act with Bill S-5.

CEPA has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1989. Through Bill S-5, the government is attempting the first major update since CEPA's inception. However, as members might be aware, Bill S-5 does several things, and some are better than others. I would like to take a minute to run through some of what this bill proposes to do.

Bill S-5 adds language to CEPA that recognizes every Canadian's right to a healthy environment and requires the Government of Canada to protect this right. Within two years, the minister is required to develop an implementation framework as to how that right to a healthy environment would be considered. Bill S-5 also puts language into CEPA that highlights the government's commitment to implement UNDRIP and recognize the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing the toxicity of a substance. Bill S-5 also aims to create a stronger regime for substances that are identified as toxic under CEPA and are of the highest risk by creating a schedule, schedule 1, to replace the list of toxic substances.

The industry impacted by CEPA has concerns about the list of toxic substances. While the word “toxic” is being removed, the substances to be regulated are still referred to as “toxic”. The plastics industry, for instance, would have an objection to this, in my opinion.

Bill S-5 also sets out the criteria by which the government would look to manage or regulate a substance. Essentially, the bill would create a watch-list. Bill S-5 also claims to allow for environmental risk assessments for drugs to be done solely under the food and drug regulations, and it removes the duplication of such monitoring under CEPA as well. This would be a first, I think, in the government's history, where it has actually tried to reduce red tape and the regulatory burden. Bill S-5 also allows any person to request that a minister assess whether a substance can become toxic; this is toxic in itself. It is very concerning to me, because it could open the government to thousands of requests, and frivolous requests at that.

The environment minister is a very ambitious minister. He likes to create all these plans that say a lot but do very little. He sets targets to be achieved, and he misses them time after time. The minister has a poor track record of meeting targets. Asking him to ensure that the assessment processes are correctly in place and to develop the framework for what a right to a healthy environment looks like, while trying to meet net-zero targets, is a big ask.

Bill S-5 does a lot of potentially complicated things. Moreover, the minister has difficulty drafting a substantive action plan for the environment. How are Canadians to trust that the minister will get these things right, when his track record shows us otherwise? More importantly, how can the industry trust this?

When we speak of the environment, we need to speak of some of the things that are being said. Back when I was a young lad in the early 1960s, I remember we had a civil defence system that was made up of volunteers. This had to do with the fact that we were just a few years out from the Second World War, and there was a concern about nuclear bombs. These things were scaring us at that particular point in time: the missile crisis and the nuclear bomb attacks.

In the 1960s, we were talking about global climate cooling, and we had everybody scared then as well. In the 1970s, we spoke about acid rain and concerns existing around that. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was all about global climate warming. In the year 2000, it was Y2K. Since global warming and global cooling did not seem to match what was happening in reality, we now simply talk about climate change. When we think about the environment, we think about the things that have to be done.

In the seventies, when I was going to university in Edmonton, I remember that there was this choice: One could take the electric trolley or stand out there and smell the diesel exhaust. Being a farm kid, I kind of knew what that was like, but nevertheless, it was important for us to make choices and recognize the difference. It was decided that the electric system would not work under those circumstances, so it went directly to diesel buses. Now, of course, we are going back. We are trying to take a look at electricity, providing we could get a grid that could handle it.

I mention that because it has been 60 years of catastrophic snake oil salesmen predicting different things that could happen. They have predicted how, in 10 years' time, we are going to have cities flooded, how we are going to have all these issues and how animals are going to go extinct. We hear that all the time.

Every once in a while, I go to Drumheller. I take a look at a sign above the canyon there saying that, 10,000 years ago, we were under a kilometre of ice. If one wanted to talk to the Laurentian elites, Montreal actually had two kilometres of ice over top of it at that time.

Things change; the climate changes. That is how we got our rivers. I know I deal with the effects of climate change right now when I have to go out into my field and pick rocks, because that is how they got there. These are the sorts of things we have to realize. Things do change.

I think back to Greenpeace leader, Patrick Moore, the founder, and his push was in nuclear power—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The bill before us, Bill S-5, has no relation to climate change or any of the topics yet referenced. This is not a generalized debate on environmental policy.

This is about a specific bill that is inadequate and that proposes to regulate toxic chemicals and improve their regulation. As much as it pains me to ask, when might the hon. member speak to Bill S-5?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will remind members to stick to the topic at hand and to make sure we stay on relevance.

The hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

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

Mr. Speaker, since it is up to a minister who has a very shaky track record, it is important that I discuss that. However, I will attempt to put all those statements in context, because, of course, we think about the minister and what he has done. It is a new generation of Greenpeace that he was part of. Patrick Moore has completely looked at that group and said the only thing green about it is the money it has brought in, and that comes because of the antics of the group. Therefore, it is important that previous Greenpeace people and previous people who were involved in the environment look and advocate for a common-sense management of our environment, where we would be 180 degrees opposite to the eco-activists who are now influencing all left-wing parties here in Canada. That is the point I had wanted to make on that particular issue.

When I was on the environment committee and, now, as a member of the natural resources committee, I have talked about the need to recognize the contribution that Canada can make to the world. Europe is begging Canada to help stabilize its energy needs. For Europe, the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia has solidified the need to have stable energy partners. Further to that, people in many countries in Europe are seeing the light, evaluating their previous policies and pivoting to return to traditional energy resources. Germany is bringing coal plants back online to meet its energy demands. The Netherlands has temporarily shut down wind farms because of their impact on migratory birds. They are doing a few other things that are hurting their farmers; this, I am sure, is something that we could speak about in another debate.

Last summer, I attended the OSCE meetings in Birmingham, England. We were there to discuss food security, energy security and security in Europe. Certainly, the energy security topic was hotly debated. The Canadian government delegation was led by ideology. I had the privilege of working with other European parliamentarians to push back on this ideological rush to unreliable energy sources at a time when our allies need to be assured that we have stable energy.

Ideology corrupts science. One does not start with an ideological position, look for markers that can be manipulated to support one's position and then proclaim that the science is settled. That is not what science is all about. However, the minister and his people seem to do that just about every time they develop a plan, regulation or new environmental bill.

Domestically, the government seems to believe that its greenhouse gas targets will be met primarily through the three items of a rapid expansion of EVs, a reduction in fertilizer use and the eventual phasing out of Canada's oil sands. These beliefs are so far out of touch. Sadly, there will be major repercussions for Canada and the world because of these short-sighted policies.

As we move forward as a nation, we should ensure that every action we take is measured. I have spoken many times about this at environment and natural resources committees. Perhaps because of my 34 years as a math and physics teacher, I believe that whatever technology we consider, we should measure the impact from the first shovel we need to dig it up to the last shovel we need to cover it up.

EVs require much more energy to produce than ICE vehicles. There are environmental impacts from rare-earth mineral excavation and chemical processing for any electrical components. Even revamped electrical grids will never be fail-safe. Windmills require hydrocarbons for both manufacturing and maintenance. Used solar panels will need to be disposed of properly. Fortunately, as Canadians, we have the know-how to meet the challenges that we face.

We should be looking for solutions that are tailored to the uniqueness of the communities in which we live. This means we need to celebrate our strengths rather than exaggerate our differences. It means recognizing indigenous leaders who want a future for their young people in a resource rich country and do not want to be dictated to once again by a government that claims to know best. This eco-colonialism is something we have to be cautious of, because we are looking at a government that says as long as we do things its way, it can help us out. That is one of the issues that I believe are so critical.

When I speak to leaders in our indigenous communities, I hear that they are looking for opportunities for their young people and their communities. When they hear governments say they do not want things done that way or that they are shutting things down because they have better jobs for people, that is where the frustration comes in.

It also means caring for each other, giving workers the best opportunities to grow and succeed and fulfilling our role as responsible energy suppliers on the global stage. That is one of the concerns I have. As I said in an article:

When I was first campaigning in 2008, a local energy worker who had worked all around the world told me how proud we should be of Canada’s energy sector and its environmental record. He stated that the only ones close were the Australians, and that was only because they were aggressively implementing Canadian state-of-the-art technology.

The quest for excellence is still part of the Canadian oil and gas industry’s DNA, but there have been hurdles, perhaps well intended, that have lessened the industry’s ability to remain on the leading edge. Limiting the access of oil and gas to world markets through federal legislation, denigrating the industry at international fora, and advocating against investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector have had consequences.

What the industry needs is certainty. A strong, supportive government is not what international players see. What they see are investors seeking opportunities elsewhere. With the energy disaster that is taking place in Europe, our potential energy customers see confusion from this government; we have a world-class product to sell, but leave the heavy lifting to others.

The Canadian industry needs an updated and modern CEPA. The inclusion of the NDP amendment that encroached on provincial jurisdiction was opposed at committee by the Liberals, but at the last minute, they flipped-flopped to support it, leaving this bill open to more jurisdictional court battles and uncertainty.

The history of the environment minister is a case in point of activism and the damage that is done because the Liberals just do not care who they hurt. Most Canadians are aware of the minister scaling structures to get arrested to make his point, but they probably do not know that he also trespassed on the modest home of then premier Ralph Klein, and in doing so dramatically upset Ralph's wife Colleen, whom I knew personally. He has no remorse and still to this day is proud of his actions, and the Prime Minister rewards his reckless criminal behaviour while Liberal members, along with their NDP coalition partner and the opportunistic Bloc members, just sit back and smile. I would have thought that a regional party like the Bloc would have voted against further provincial encroachment, but they voted in lockstep with the Liberal-NDP coalition.

Alberta has always had pristine water, fresh air and fertile soil. We produce the cleanest oil and natural gas in the world. That is why the Lougheed government embarked on a program to get natural gas to every rural resident possible. That could happen for all of this country if we would think our way through this problem.

Alberta, through the oil sands, has financed and carried this country through some tough times. In fact, the oil and gas sector is the feedstock for the products that will be covered under CEPA, as well as the feedstock for every other type of energy source that this world needs. However, as I mentioned before, the minister and the government do not care who they hurt or how they damage industries or interprovincial relationships.

The last-minute support of the NDP amendment, among the other reasons I have outlined, is why I will not be supporting this bill.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

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, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for the purpose of modifying clause 9 with the view to safeguard provincial jurisdiction with respect to regulating mining tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

This amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to ask the member if he wants to say anything else that can be clipped to use against the Conservatives in the next election, but I will just point out one of the fallacies in his comments. It is something I talk about a lot in the House. He spoke about how harmful electric vehicles are to the environment compared to standard fossil fuel-burning vehicles. The thing is, though, that the batteries for electric vehicles can be completely recycled. As a matter of fact, there is a firm in my riding that can recycle 97% of an electric vehicle battery so it can be reused in another EV. This is not going to happen in the future; this is happening right now.

How can the member possibly make such an argument when a battery for an electric vehicle can continue to be recycled endlessly into the future, whereas when we burn fossil fuel, it is gone, it is burned and we have to burn more again the next time and more the time after that and the time after that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it takes 500,000 pounds of earth to make that 1,000-pound battery, and it is not without toxicity.

It is very interesting when I hear the government say how it is going to handle this. It says we have all these rare-earth minerals here in Canada, so is it not a great idea for us to use them rather than buying this technology from China? Of course, I will leave that there.

Here is the issue. How can we ever expect to produce the batteries required with the rare earth minerals we have when we have a government that restricts all development? We can look at the bills that have been presented to stop oil and gas. We will have exactly the same bills to stop people from having mines in their communities, and it will go from there. We have heard this sort of thing from the members of the NDP. They are standing up for jobs, but they say not to bring any of this into their regions. That is the problem we have.

As far as being able to recycle batteries goes, it is great, but to put another battery into a vehicle takes $10,000 just to get the car to a spot where the new battery can be put in it. Yes, it would be great if we could recycle it, maybe using storage banks and that type of thing, but I believe all of those things have to be thought about. That is why I said we must measure this entirely, from the first shovel to dig it up to the last shovel to cover it up. In no way am I suggesting that this is not something we should measure.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify one small point. The percentage of rare earth minerals in the lithium ion batteries used in electric vehicles is 0%. That is the first thing I wanted to clarify.

Next, what must be taken into account is the lifespan of a vehicle. It may take more energy to assemble an electric vehicle, but with its lifespan, it becomes far more environmentally responsible than a gas-powered vehicle. The member did not get that far in his reasoning.

When I was listening to his speech, I let out a big sigh. Everything he said could be challenged, but one thing in particular made me shudder. His entire speech made me shudder, but one part in particular startled me and that was when he said that warnings against climate change are propaganda or ideology.

That stood out in his entire pro-oil mantra and his comments about using the war in Ukraine for opportunistic reasons. He recited the mantra of the Conservatives, who are on the brink of proposing that the prayer in the house be a prayer to oil and that a good glass of oil for babies be added to the Canada food guide.

What stood out in the middle of all that was when he said at one point that warning people about climate change was ideological. He said people are fearmongering by talking about flooding and so on. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we are in the middle of a climate crisis. We are living it. It is happening. It is our reality and it is science.

I have a simple question for the member. Does climate change exist, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course the climate has been changing. That is the point I made when I said that we went from about two miles of ice on top of Montreal 10,000 years ago to cutting the St. Lawrence River and all of that. We know that it is changing. The point being said is that this means the man-made part is accelerating it. That is the discussion we are having, and I want to make sure we understand that because I am talking about both. I think that is really the critical point here.

The other thing I am saying is about the stories we listen to that say water is going to be 10 metres higher. Rich guys are still buying mansions on the oceans, insurance companies have not gotten to the stage where they are putting an extra premium on that and mortgages are still for 40 years, so not everybody is taking the things being said as 100% accurate.