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

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we learned a lot from the speech given by my colleague from Milton. There were some very interesting things in there, including the fact that he ate some portobello mushrooms. I want him to know that I too like mushrooms, oyster mushrooms.

I would like to be a little more serious, unlike this government. Speaking of serious, the environment does not seem to be a priority for the federal government. Why do I say that? When did we begin working on Bill S-5, which is currently before the House? It was in February 2016 in committee. Of course, committee work and reports have been done. Which party was in government at the time? It was the Liberal Party. Which government introduced the previous version, Bill C-28? This is the same government that introduced that bill and then called an election. It could have resolved the whole situation several years ago.

Today, Bill S-5 has very little depth. A quarter of the implementation will be done through regulations issued by the minister over the next two years. However, we are in a climate emergency.

Do the Liberals not understand this or are they just used to not moving quickly? Why this lack of will and courage? I would like my colleague to explain to me whether he is prepared to include in the charter the right to a healthy environment, as Quebec is so courageously doing right now?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if my colleague did not like my speech on mushrooms, which are a very important source of copper. That is something I did not know a week ago.

I want to come back to the topic of leadership and courage in Bill S‑5. The question is, why did the government have the courage to create and consider a bill similar to the Government of Quebec? The answer is in the question. It is right there. It is the same thing in British Columbia. The provincial governments, in every case, take a position of leadership and courage.

It is important that provinces take a leadership position, and governments like those in Quebec and B.C. have done that in environmental causes and many others.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member for Milton and his work on the health file.

Health Canada has found that air pollution is a factor in 15,300 premature deaths and millions of respiratory issues every year in Canada, yet this bill has nothing in it about air quality standards. We need to have enforceable air quality standards in Canada, but this bill does not mention it at all. The air flows between provinces. We see that with the smoke coming out of Alberta.

Why did the government leave air quality completely out of this bill and vote down proposed amendments to fix this?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a really good question. I would also like to say that I have a tremendous respect for my colleague on and off the soccer pitch.

I will be completely honest and forthcoming. I was not on the environment committee, and I do not know why decisions were made with respect to this bill, but I also know that a bill, if it tries to do everything, might achieve nothing. In this case, this bill focuses on some areas of environmental protection and the right to a clean environment, and it will achieve those things. If there is further legislation required to ensure we all have clean air to breathe, then I would be the first to suggest that our government has an obligation to ensure just that.

I was at an event last week with some of the foremost environmentalists in the country and heard a lot of criticisms, but there was also some support for the work we are doing as a government. We get more done when we work together and come together and focus on solutions as a group, so I would like to thank the members of the NDP for their support, their good amendments and saying that they are going to vote for this bill, because Bill S-5 is an important bill for the health and wellness of Canadians and the right to a clean environment, and I hope it will receive unanimous support from all members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the member had the opportunity to listen to the speech before his, where a Conservative started to suggest that acid rain was a hoax or something put out there to sell people things. I am not sure if now is a good time to inform that member that it was actually the Conservative Government of Canada that literally saved the world. It brought the world together to talk about the ozone layer and to save the world. It was a Conservative Government of Canada, led by Brian Mulroney, that brought 42 countries together to talk about the ozone layer and that fought with George Bush senior to do something about acid rain. Those were true Progressive Conservatives who believed in doing everything we could do. They believed in Canada taking a leadership role when it came to saving the environment.

I wonder if the member can reflect on the Conservative Party of the past versus the Conservative Party of today.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be absolutely thrilled to.

Gone are the times when Canadians could rely on Conservative-elected politicians to be real with them about climate change. Back in the day, in the eighties and nineties, Brian Mulroney indeed was a leader. He fought against acid rain. He also believed in fair taxation. He brought forward a really effective wealth tax called the GST at the time, now called the HST, that has thankfully endured. It is an important tax that Canadians rely on. These were good ideas that previous Conservative governments put forth.

Unfortunately, I have not heard any of those types of solutions from any Conservatives of late. I am sure they are there somewhere. They proposed a carbon pricing mechanism in their last campaign. They have abandoned that now. I do not know where those ideas went, if they have just evaporated into the ether around Durham region, but the fact remains that there have to be some good ideas over on the other side. Good legislation gets built when multipartisan groups come together to focus on solutions, so we would love to hear some solutions, such as how we can combat things like acid rain or tax Canadians fairly.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has the floor.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although I want to hear the member for Peace River—Westlock speak to this issue, I move, seconded by the member for Foothills, that:

The member for Battle River—Crowfoot be now heard.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the Chamber wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to let the members decide. I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies has a point of order.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is in regard to my vote. I was torn, as I wanted to vote for both members, and in my ignorance I voted for both members. I felt loyal to both of them, but when push comes to shove, I will vote for the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is rising.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was equally torn, but in the situation, I was voting for the member for Peace River—Westlock.