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

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

moved that 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 read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-5, strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

Due to the vital work of parliamentarians, Bill S-5 has progressed steadily and it is now a stronger bill because of the parliamentary process and remarkable collaboration among partners, stakeholders and the public.

The government supports this bill and urges members in both chambers to pass it. The bill has reached a critical juncture. We must now turn our attention to ensuring the bill, as amended, receives royal assent without delay so that the government can get on with the very important work of implementing it in co-operation with partners, stakeholders and the public.

With this goal in mind, we wish to address some concerns raised during debates over the last couple of weeks. In particular, I refer to comments regarding the scope of information-gathering powers under CEPA, as well as the framework for assessing new living organisms under part 6 of the act.

The hon. member for Victoria spoke at length about tailings ponds and moved an amendment at report stage to restore amendments adopted in the other place that added explicit references to hydraulic fracturing and tailings ponds to the non-exhaustive list of information that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change can compel.

The ENVI committee reversed this amendment, removing the explicit references to hydraulic fracturing and tailings ponds, and the government was supportive. I will briefly explain the rationale behind the government's initial position on that change and then explain why the government ultimately decided to support the hon. member for Victoria's motion to reinstate the language regarding hydraulic fracturing and tailings ponds.

Section 46 of CEPA, the provision in question, gives the minister broad authority to compel others to provide information about substances and activities for various purposes, such as conducting research, creating an inventory of data, issuing guidelines, and assessing and reporting on the state of the environment. This is a very broad information-gathering authority and it provides the basis for the department's national pollutant release inventory, NPRI.

The NPRI tracks over 320 pollutants from over 7,000 facilities across Canada, specifically in relation to tailings and waste rock. Facilities must report the quantity and concentration of NPRI substances disposed of in tailings or waste rock management areas on site, or sent to another facility for disposal in such areas.

Section 46 is already being used to compel persons to report information regarding the use of tailings ponds, and Environment and Climate Change Canada then publicly reports this information through the NPRI.

With respect to hydraulic fracturing, the NPRI also captures underground releases from certain in situ oil sands operations and the department provides guidance to facilities on how to report substances that are injected underground.

As introduced, Bill S-5 proposed to broaden the information-gathering power in section 46 by adding a new paragraph directed at activities that may contribute to pollution. Without question, such activities would include hydraulic fracturing and the use of tailings ponds, so adding additional explicit references to tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing under section 46 of CEPA was not necessary for the minister to compel, collect and report information on these activities. I realize this is really getting in the weeds.

That said, recent events in Alberta underscore the importance of understanding the risks to the environment and human health from tailings ponds. Although adding specific references to hydraulic fracturing and tailings ponds to the bill would not, in and of itself, address the potential environmental and health risks associated with these activities, this change would make explicit that the government has the authority to compel, and does collect and report information related to tailings ponds. That is why this government supported the hon. member for Victoria's motion.

What else is this government doing to effectively reduce these risks?

Since the federal government was made aware of the seepage incident at the Kearl oil sands mine, we have been working to get to the bottom of it, support indigenous communities and collaborate on improving the reporting system for these kinds of incidents. We hear loud and clear the concerns being expressed by indigenous communities regarding the management of the tailings and the potential impacts on the local environment and communities. We have been in continuous contact with these folks.

In April, the minister sent letters to indigenous leaders about a new notification and monitoring working group, which would include the federal and provincial governments, indigenous communities and the Government of Northwest Territories, which is downstream. Northern indigenous communities will also be kept well informed and engaged. We are proposing a governance structure that includes co-chairs, with representation from the federal and provincial governments and indigenous communities. From the federal perspective, an enhanced communication protocol must be developed to improve notification at all steps in the notification process in cases of future environmental emergencies.

Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officials have also been very active on the ground. Just the other week, the department's enforcement branch opened up an investigation into a suspected contravention of subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act at Imperial Oil Limited's Kearl oil sands site. Subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish or in any place where the deleterious substance may enter such water.

Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers and environmental emergencies officers have carried out inspections at the site since they became aware of the incident on February 7, 2023. In addition to the investigation, officers will continue to monitor the mitigation measures taken by Imperial Oil Limited to prevent impacts to fish-bearing water, as required by the Fisheries Act direction issued by Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement on March 10, 2023.

This brings me to a very important point: Tailings ponds and, indeed, many other activities that pose risks to environmental or human health are not necessarily issues that can be exclusively addressed under CEPA. While CEPA is a large act that deals with many topics, it is not always the most appropriate act for addressing every issue or risk. In certain cases, it would be more efficient and effective to manage risks under another federal act that is best placed or specifically tailored for addressing those risks. It is for this reason that Bill S-5 proposes amendments that provide the flexibility to meet risk-management obligations under CEPA using other federal acts, including those for which another minister is responsible, like the Fisheries Act.

I wish to address concerns expressed by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding the amendments to part 6 of the act and clarify a couple of things regarding the new proposed approach to public participation under this part.

Part 6 of the act deals with products of biotechnology, also known as living organisms, and provides for a robust framework for the assessment and management of risks associated with new living organisms. As introduced, Bill S-5 did not propose any amendments to this framework. However, thanks to the important contributions of stakeholders such as Nature Canada and others throughout the parliamentary process, amendments were adopted to part 6 that, if passed, would require that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and my colleague the Minister of Health consult with interested persons when assessing new living organisms that are vertebrate animals, such as AquaBounty and AquAdvantage salmon, as well as other organisms that may be prescribed by regulation.

During the report stage debates, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested that the term “interested persons” had a specific meaning, namely that it would preclude the participation of indigenous peoples, scientists and the public in the assessment process. That is not at all the case. Quite to the contrary, this amendment is intentionally broad to ensure that everyone can participate. In fact, “interested persons” is the exact same language in the provision of this bill that requires the Minister of Health and I to consult on the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment.

Coming back to the amendments to part 6 adopted by the ENVI committee, there is also a requirement to publish a notice of consultation before undertaking the consultations themselves. This notice would be publicly accessible and would serve the purpose of allowing interested persons, including indigenous peoples, scientists and members of the public, to identify themselves so they can participate accordingly. This requirement to publish a notice of consultation was absent from the proposal moved by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. For that and other reasons, the government could not support it.

Lastly, on the topic of part 6, it is important to note that much of the act is implemented through regulations, specifically the new substances notification regulations for organisms, or NSNRO, a particular aspect of the regulations. These regulations set out the details of how new living organisms are assessed and managed.

In October of last year, the government published a discussion paper and launched consultations on the modernization of these regulations. The discussion paper highlighted themes of increasing openness and transparency, and responding to advances in science and technology. These are key components of this regulatory review exercise, and the new statutory requirement to consult under CEPA will be an important complement to this work.

I encourage stakeholders interested in the framework for assessing new living organisms under part 6 of CEPA to participate in the regulatory review process for the new substances notification regulations. After considering comments received, the government will make recommendations for amending the regulations and will invite additional feedback.

I would like to reiterate that the government appreciates the work of the members of the Senate ENEV and House ENVI committees to strengthen this bill and ensure that it will make a difference in the lives of Canadians. The government urges our colleagues in the other place to accept the amendments made by the elected officials in this chamber and send this bill to receive royal assent without delay. Only then can the government get to work putting these important changes into practice.

Once this bill comes into force, we will begin a range of regulatory and implementation initiatives. The two main initiatives will involve developing both the implementation framework for a right to a healthy environment and the plan of chemicals management priorities.

Within two years of coming into force, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will develop an implementation framework with the Minister of Health to set out how the right to a healthy environment will be considered in the administration of CEPA. There will be opportunities for the public to participate in the development of the implementation framework, and progress on the framework's implementation will be documented annually in the CEPA annual report. We also need to develop and implement the plan of chemicals management priorities, also within two years of royal assent. Stakeholders and partners will be consulted as part of the plan's development.

Animal testing was a major theme throughout the parliamentary process. The government remains committed to taking steps toward replacing and reducing reliance on vertebrate animal testing. The government will continue to work with industry, academia and our international partners to develop and evaluate non-animal methods. Through Bill S-5, the plan of chemicals management priorities will include a strategy to promote the development and use of methods not involving the use of vertebrate animals.

Beyond these two key implementation deliverables, additional regulatory and implementation activities will be needed to operationalize remaining amendments, which will modernize Canada's approach to chemicals management. For example, regulations will need to be developed to define the properties and characteristics of the new subset of toxic substances that pose the highest risk. There will be opportunities for stakeholder input throughout the regulatory process.

The government will also work on developing policies and guidance for publishing and maintaining the watch-list and for facilitating a more open and transparent confidential business information regime. Similarly, policies and guidance will be developed to flesh out the process for the public to request the assessment of a substance. Finally, the government will continue to work on developing a broad labelling and supply chain transparency strategy, expected to be published later this year.

In closing, I urge all members of this House and the other place to vote for strengthened environmental protection and for a healthier Canada for all Canadians by supporting Bill S-5.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be participating in today's debate. I am also very pleased to see my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, again. I have a lot of respect and esteem for him. I will give him a moment to put his earpiece on properly so that he can hear the interpreters. Incidentally, I would like to thank them for doing such a great job.

Before raising a substantive issue, I would like to point out that, in my opinion, the government has made a mistake. It is a logistical error, but it is annoying. We are here in the House to debate a bill on the environment, Bill S-5, on which the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked very hard. At the same time, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is meeting to debate another issue. To my knowledge, this is the first time that an issue is being debated in the House and in committee by the same MPs. I think that this is an oversight on the part of the government House leader. I encourage him to be more careful in future.

My question for the hon. member is as follows. On January 30, in committee, the member and his party voted in favour of a motion moved by the Conservative member for Calgary Centre. The motion sought to withdraw an amendment that had been proposed by Senator McCallum. When the NDP presented its amendment here in the House two weeks ago, however, the Liberal Party voted in favour of it. That is the exact opposite of what it did in committee. Why take both sides on the same issue?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his hard work and participation on Bill S-5 at the committee stage. We spent over 50 hours between the Senate and the ENVI committee studying this bill, so we did a thorough job. I compliment the hon. member on his contributions, which were frequent and very positive. For the most part we agreed.

The amendment to which he refers I spoke about extensively in my speech. The amendment related to tailings ponds and fracking was, I think, a happenstance of circumstances. We know there was an oil spill and seepage in northern Alberta that has caused heartache, worry and fear among indigenous communities. I think we as a committee wanted to highlight that and give it special attention. At the end of the day, those provisions were already covered under CEPA, but the committee, with that amendment, felt the need for emphasis. That is why we, in the end, went with that position.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the environment, there is often a huge difference between what should be done and what ends up being done. Bill S-5 is sort of symbolic that way, meaning that we are doing a little when we should be doing a lot more.

The Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the NDP, which are other parties but can still contribute, wanted to add teeth to the bill so that it would have some clout and could make bigger and more beneficial changes to help the planet.

However, it appears that the Liberals' goal was to limit the scope of the bill, which I find disappointing. In its current position, the Liberal government knows full well that it can always count on the Conservatives' support when it wants to limit the environmental scope of certain bills. It also knows that, even when it is being extremely pro-oil, it can count on the NDP's support when it needs its budget to be adopted, along with its credits for oil companies.

Does the parliamentary secretary not realize that his government always sides with the oil companies? It is sad, because, in the end, the entire planet will have to pay the price.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member heard, but one of our Conservative colleagues just said that we had gone too far. That is an interesting contrast to his statement.

For the first time, we are introducing a right to a healthy environment. We are going to take our time. We are going to take the next 24 months to define that right and to define how it will be implemented. It will have teeth. It will help us better the environment for our kids, our grandkids and indigenous peoples.

In closing, I would add that the Bloc will be supporting the bill. We are very happy to hear that, because his colleague was very active and very collaborative, and made very good suggestions on improving the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, rarely have I been so frequently referenced by a parliamentary secretary while bringing forward a bill, being Bill S-5, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a bill with which I have decades of familiarity through the strange happenstance that I was in the Minister of Environment's office and worked on it before first reading in 1988. I will let that sink in for a minute.

I grieve the reality that this bill is weaker than what we brought forward in 1988, but let me turn quickly to the points that the parliamentary secretary made. I never asserted that the words “interested parties” would preclude the involvement of indigenous people or scientists. The amendment that I attempted to bring forward at report stage was to ensure that the opportunity to provide for relevant indigenous knowledge and scientific information was protected.

I will put it to the hon. parliamentary secretary that I did not claim that “interested parties” precluded indigenous peoples and scientific knowledge, but that it does not specifically include them, and “interested parties” in the jurisprudence usually means a party, such as a chemical company, that has a direct interest.

I would also like to put this to the hon. parliamentary secretary. When he says that part 6 of the act, which was essentially untouched over the last 20 years, dealing with genetically modified living organisms, in his words, has a “robust framework”, could he explain how it is that Canada is the only country in the world to have approved genetically modified animals for human consumption?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I reference the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands often, it is an indication of the deep respect that I have for her and the long time that I have known her as one of the foremost environmental activists in our country.

We are going to be consulting broadly on part 6, because we want to implement regulations that will have teeth and that will address some of the concerns about genetically modified organisms. In my speech, I referenced genetically modified salmon. This was raised at committee repeatedly. If a genetically modified organism escapes into the wild, it could literally pollute the gene pool of living organisms there.

With respect to indigenous people, I want to thank Senator McCallum, who happens to be from Manitoba, my home province. She really added so many important provisions that recognize the important role indigenous people play in our country in protecting the environment. UNDRIP is referenced; traditional knowledge is referenced, and those kinds of provisions are a great improvement in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend, for many years, has been a very strong advocate on the environmental file, in particular with regard to waterways. I know he was in charge of a press conference we just recently had in the city of Winnipeg, dealing with the Canada water agency, and I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts on how important that is to our country and to our city.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, CEPA and the Fisheries Act help protect our water, but the federal government needs to show more leadership on water, and I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who repeatedly called for an independent departmental agency that would report directly to the minister, which we now call the Canada water agency. It would help to protect and manage our waterways, working with provinces, territories, indigenous governments and communities, and other stakeholders for time immemorial.

Canada is home to 20% of the world's fresh water, and we have to protect it.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate.

As members know, since October, I have had the privilege of being the official opposition's shadow minister for climate change and environment. I am honoured by the confidence placed in me by the hon. member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition and our future prime minister. Of course, I intend to take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, this is essentially the first bill I have been able to devote 100% of my time to. I participated in almost every stage of the bill.

Climate change is real. Humans have an impact on the creation of climate change, which is why humans must find solutions. That is why we offered our full support to the committee, along with the government and the other political parties, to make sure that the bill can be passed, balanced with the necessary political debate. Let me explain.

This bill seeks to update an act that was adopted nearly 24 years ago, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

It is totally normal and useful to review a bill that was tabled almost a quarter of a century ago, so this what we did in a committee of the House. The Senate also did that job of adapting what was tabled in 1999 to the reality of 2023 and more.

That is why we wanted to strike the appropriate balance between protecting the environment and the future of this planet and taking the Canadian economy and Canadians' lives into account. That is what this bill tries to do.

The bill has received support from environmental groups and the industry, but not unqualified support, not blind support. These two groups often disagree on the common good, but they did agree on one thing, which is that it was time to move forward.

I recall that the bill was tabled in the Senate, and all the people who are interested in environmental issues will say it is time to move forward and act. For sure, it is time to act, but unfortunately the bill, though it may be passed today or tomorrow, will be a year to two too late. This is because this piece of legislation was tabled in the old Parliament, and it was before the Prime Minister decided almost two years ago to call the shots and call an election during the fourth wave of the COVID pandemic. It was an election that cost more than $600 million of taxpayer money for almost exactly the same result we had. This was only because the Prime Minister wanted to move by himself, but for that we lost a full year of parliamentary work on that piece of legislation.

The bill as it stands is essentially the same as the earlier version that was introduced during the previous Parliament. This time, the government has decided, and that is its right, to introduce it in the upper chamber. It was debated in the Senate as Bill S-5. It was then sent to the House of Commons to be debated here. That is interesting, and this is where we have some concerns. I will come back to that.

Essentially, at the heart of the matter, as I said, this bill is a revision of the environmental laws that we have had for almost a quarter of a century. However, there are also new elements. First, we recognize the right of citizens to live in a healthy environment. That is a principle that we Conservatives support. This is obvious. However, it must be precisely defined.

The bill provides for two years of work to be able to define the legal framework, since, as we know all too well in our business, the devil is in the details. We therefore have to be sure that we have a really good law and proper regulations. The profile of populations said to be vulnerable must also defined. When there is mining or natural resource development, this may have a direct impact on people’s lives, just as the construction of a plant or new infrastructure can have a direct impact on a population. This is what we define as vulnerable populations and we need to make sure that all this goes well.

There was an agreement to move forward. That is what we did.

In fact, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, there have been more than 50 hours of committee work to be sure that we could directly address many aspects. Noting is perfect in this world, but we still worked well together, hand in hand. In addition, it always made me smile to see that we were finally getting along more often than we may have thought with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. As a resident of Quebec, I have known him for many years, as well as his very active role in defending the environment. Let us remember that 30 years and two weeks ago, he founded the group Équiterre with a few friends. As we know, Équiterre is now suing him for damaging the Canadian environment. Bill S-5 is off to a good start. We have clear objectives and we support them.

However, now in our parliamentary work, something surprising, if not disappointing, has happened. That is what we call a flip flop. A party voted for something during parliamentary committee work and, when it came to the House, changed its mind and voted against it. They have that right. We do not dispute that right. It is just that we were a bit surprised and shocked, particularly since the flip flop was not related to a misplaced dash or comma in the text of Bill S-5, but instead about a fundamental element, respect for provincial jurisdiction. In our view, the amendment adopted by the House, particularly with the support and assistance of the Liberal government, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Green Party and the independents—in short, the Conservatives were the only ones who opposed it, and I will have the opportunity to clearly explain why—is an intrusion into areas of jurisdiction.

The amendment as presented was not in the main bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament and in the Senate a year and a half ago. That element was not in it. It is an amendment that was proposed on June 1 2022, almost a year ago, by the senator from Manitoba, an amendment that essentially seeks to regulate tailing ponds and hydraulic fracturing. Basically, when work on natural resources is being carried out and there is hydraulic fracturing, that leaves tailings. That is why a legal framework was developed for that situation. In our view, this amendment, as proposed and adopted by the Senate, is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. That can be challenged, but that is our view.

In fact, our perspective has been so well explained that, when we came before a House of Commons parliamentary committee, the member for Calgary-Centre suggested that these elements of the bill be withdrawn and that this amendment not be adopted. When the member for Calgary-Centre says something, it is because it has merit and is based on facts. There is jurisprudence to support it and relevant documentation. I have learned a lot from the co-operation and work of the member for Calgary-Centre.

He was so convincing that he was able to persuade the government party in the parliamentary committee. All the liberal members, who are not the majority, but the largest parliamentary group in parliamentary committee, decided to support our proposal to set aside Senator McCallum’s amendment presented in June 2022.

Let us review the facts: The bill does not provide for the regulation on hydraulic fracturing. Senator McCallum proposed an amendment to give teeth, depth and political weight to the federal government’s authority over this event. We get to committee and our party says stop, this is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and the Liberals vote with us. It is great, it is perfect, we agree. This is just one of many aspects, and I am focusing on that.

I am being honest, and I am sure that the Liberal MPs will agree with me. It is impossible to fully agree on all of the items.

In fact, I have been known to say that, if someone ever meets a politician who says they are completely in agreement with their leader, their party, all of their colleagues and the election platform, they are looking at a complete liar. It is humanly impossible, and the same is true for everyone. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who I am sure is nodding in agreement with me.

What I am trying to say is that the more than 50 hours of work done in committee was an attempt to achieve consensus. Sometimes we succeeded, sometimes we did not. Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we disagreed. That is the big picture.

We are supportive of the big picture of this bill, but we have some disagreements, as all of the parties have disagreements with some aspects of this bill.

Everything was going well, it was great. We did our work in committee. When we got to the House to make a few speeches and accept the tabled report, three amendments were proposed: two by the Green Party and one by the NDP. The NDP’s amendment is essentially the same as Senator McCallum’s.

That was a surprise and a disappointment, a bitter turn of events. Although we had the support and the agreement of the Liberal Party to make sure there was no interference in provincial jurisdiction, the Liberals switched sides and voted in favour of the NDP’s amendment. I acknowledge that that is their right. Anyone can change their mind. That is called evolution. Sometimes, when we change our minds, we evolve. I will say it that way to be polite.

Some of my colleagues suggested that that is the nature of the coalition. As we know, the government has been working collaboratively with the NDP for a year now, even though they were certainly not given that mandate during the election. Canadians were not asked to vote for a coalition. The NDP said Canadians should vote for them and against the Liberals, and the Liberals said they should vote against the NDP, since they were not the NDP. Now, everyone is perfectly cozy, working together. That is the reality.

The Liberals then flip-flop and support their coalition with the NDP, going against what they did in committee, against protecting provincial jurisdictions, against the fact that a bill should not lead to a constitutional dispute. On the contrary, we need to clarify the situation.

These people crashed the debate and created this situation. What a disappointment. That is why, unfortunately, we will be voting against the bill, which, as amended, creates a legal precedent rife with consequences.

This is why, last week, many of my colleagues from Alberta published a communiqué that says, “Canada's regulatory oversight framework is based upon clear division of responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government, as defined in our Constitution. The continued attempts to muddle this jurisdictional responsibility have led to a convoluted process of project approvals, duplication of costs, and uncertainty amongst investors.”

Basically, what they are saying is that jurisdictional squabbles between the federal and provincial governments slow down projects, slow down the process and create uncertainty. They do not encourage people to move forward. People always hold back a bit. That is unfortunate because Canada is needed now more than ever. The world needs Canada's energy and natural resources more than ever, because we develop those resources responsibly and with respect for human rights in order to ensure they are sustainable. That is what Canada is known for.

When layers of debate are created between the federal and provincial governments, it stalls all of that. Canada deserves better than another squabble between the federal and provincial governments. That is why we do not support this bill. I must also say that I was rather surprised that, both in committee and in the House, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this interference in the debates between the federal and provincial governments. We know that the Bloc Québécois always says that it is there to defend the interests of Quebec and that, by so doing, it is also defending the interests of all the provinces on jurisdictional matters, and yet in this case, the Bloc is giving the federal government more power to intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction, natural resources.

This should come as no surprise. As members will recall, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-69. This actually goes back quite some time. It goes back to June 13, 2019, during the first Parliament of this Liberal government. The Bloc Québécois supported this Liberal government's Bill C-69. One could say that this goes way back, and wonder what it has to do with today's subject.

Bill C-69 established a federal authority that supersedes the provincial authority for the development of hydroelectric resources. Everyone knows that Quebec has extraordinary hydroelectric potential, with dams that were all developed in the 1950s. Most were completed in the 1960s. We are very proud of them. Some that come to mind are the Beauharnois power station, which was expanded three times, or the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 power stations, built in 1953 and 1956. There is also the Carillon generating station, which was given the green light in 1958, and the Manic-Outardes complex, which was developed in the 1950s and completed in the 1960s.

Quebec is very strong on hydroelectric production, but Bill C-69 contains a clause that says that the federal authority has the power to order environmental feasibility studies for these projects. This was well explained in an article by Alexandre Shields in Le Devoir. No one can really say that Mr. Shields and Le Devoir are Conservatives. That is the last thing anyone can say.

In an article published on September 29, 2022, Mr. Shields gives a clear description of the situation saying, “That means that a major project...would involve the submission of an impact assessment study [to the federal government]. The federal government would then lead a process including public consultations and the drafting of a report....Then, the federal Minister of Environment would have to publish a ‘decision statement’ to authorize, or not, the construction of the concrete work.”

Bill C‑69 granted the federal government the option to exercise veto power over hydro projects in Quebec, and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it. The Bloc Québécois voted for the NDP-Liberal coalition amendment, which allows for federal involvement in provincial jurisdictions. That does not make any sense to us. Natural resources are Canada's resources and we should be proud of that. We should be proud of the women and men who work in this sector. We should be proud of these people who, along with many others, create wealth in our country.

The last thing this industry and these people need is a jurisdictional squabble. That is what the Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Green-Independent amendment does. That is why we are voting against this bill.

In closing, I want to say this: This government prides itself on its fine words, but the results are sorely lacking. Let us recall what it said in 2015:

“Canada is back. Canada is back."?

Canada has far to go. The UN handed down a severe verdict in a report tabled at COP27 in Egypt concluding that Canada ranks 58th out of 63 nations on environmental issues. I am not the one saying this. It is written in black and white on page 11 of the UN’s document. This is unacceptable from people who are constantly lecturing everyone. Need I remind members that the Liberals never managed to achieve their own greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? They will say that is not true, that it has happened. The only time it happened was when the country shut down its economy because of COVID-19. I hope that their plan is not to shut down the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Our plan is based on four basic pillars. First, we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through fiscal incentives to invest in new technologies. We need to give green energies the green light so they can be more accessible to Canadians. We need to export Canadian know-how. We should be proud to be Canadians and to develop our natural resource potential because, here at home, in Canada, we do it right.

The fourth pillar is that everything should be done in partnership with the first nations. Together we can meet the challenges of climate change and the environment. Unfortunately, this bill, because of an amendment adopted at the last minute following a reversal by the Liberal Party, with the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the independent MPs, is going to trigger another federal-provincial dispute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks and his hard work on the ENVI committee.

As I mentioned in my speech, materially, the NDP amendment really does nothing to detract from the bill. It is because of the Kearl tailings pond spill that the committee, in the end, voted to draw attention to this particular issue, so that it gets special attention. It is not a jurisdictional issue. This was already covered under the act and we are very careful about jurisdictional matters with federal legislation.

My understanding was that the Conservatives were going to support the bill coming out of committee. Does this one change cause them to change their mind and to now vote against the bill after 50 hours of deliberations, during which the Conservatives mostly agreed with most of the amendments?

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

Mr. Speaker, my answer is really simple: Yes. Unfortunately, yes.

First of all, the hon. member said that amendment changed nothing. So why did he vote for it if it changed nothing? I do not understand why. The issue is what we have seen in Alberta following the tragedy there. Well, everything was said before. If I understand correctly what my colleague said, it changes nothing, and so if it changes nothing why did they vote for it?

We see, unfortunately, an attack on the jurisdictional procedure. Some people will say no, some people will say yes, and that is the problem. We are going to start another fight for that, and who do we think will win that? It will be the lawyers. I have nothing against them, but, yes, for sure, we would start a new fight with that, which is the last thing we need when we talk about climate change, environmental issues and developing our full potential.

Yes, we will vote against the bill, because it is not a minor agreement. We were surprised to see the flip-flop of the Liberals with the support of the NDP, Bloc, Greens and independents.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which, as always, was passionate, well illustrated, and provided some really good arguments.

We are probably experiencing the sixth mass extinction event for the species on our planet. I would like to ask my colleague a very specific question, since we are debating an environmental bill that protects species. Everyone is familiar with the monarch butterfly, that little orange butterfly. It is a species at risk that will now become an endangered species. A good part of the land where the monarch butterfly feeds on milkweed, its main source of food, is part of the Montreal airport. Over the past 10 years, the monarch butterfly population has declined by 85%. Our Minister of Environment says he defends biodiversity, but he is doing absolutely nothing to protect the monarch butterfly on federally owned land.

What would the Conservative Party do to save the monarch butterfly?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit to the member that this is the first time I am hearing about this. I will take that under advisement, because I do not want to treat it like an insignificant detail. On the contrary, little things like that are what is hurting our environment and we need to take the work seriously.

Because we do need to take this work seriously, it would be very hypocritical of me to start pleading on behalf of that beautiful little orange butterfly. It would be like if I were talking about blue jays. Out of respect for this issue, for my colleague, for the House and for myself, I will not just rattle off any old answer, but yes, we need to be careful.

I understand very well the political spin that my colleague is putting on this, seeing how the Minister of Environment, the founder of Équiterre, is currently being sued by Équiterre because he decided to develop the full potential of Canada's natural resources through projects like Bay du Nord, which we applaud.

Beyond that, I will take the member's suggestion under advisement and come back to it another time.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I have a hard time following the Conservatives when it comes to fossil fuels, oil and the fight against climate change.

In the last budget, I do not know how many times I asked the government whether it would stop giving money to big oil. I want to remind members that, in 2022, the five major oil companies made $200 billion in combined profits. In the most recent budget, our friends opposite continued to give those companies money in the form of direct and indirect assistance for carbon capture, which we now know does not work. That is greenwashing.

I do not understand why the Conservatives are voting against giving the oil companies money. I am trying to understand.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I am fully prepared to recognize, and that is the hon. member's love for Quebec and Quebeckers.

I know that he knows—as I said a few moments ago in a parliamentary committee—that Quebeckers do not exist in a vacuum, that they live on planet Earth and that, last year, according to a study by the École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal, Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of oil. Today's reality is that Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year.

I am more than willing to hear all the arguments about getting rid of oil, because it is terrible, because it is this or that. Yes, but the fact is that Quebec consumes 18 billion litres of oil. In addition, 47% of that oil comes from the United States. The last time I checked, neither Texas nor Louisiana contribute to equalization.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments and his speech.

I liked the part in his speech where he said that it was okay to disagree with people from his own party, or with the leader of his party. I agree with that.

I noticed a few things. There is a kind of division that I have a hard time rationalizing. For example, some Conservative members believe in climate change and some do not. In my opinion, the distinction seems geographic.

Can my hon. colleague from Quebec explain why he is being cautious about the oil and gas sector when it comes to this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me pay all my respects to the quality of the member's French. We have all worked to learn a second language. When I talk about a second language, I am not talking about French. I am talking about the second language after our mother tongue language.

For as long as we need natural resources, including fossil resources, and for as long as we need oil, I will always stand for what is right for Canada, just as I support hydroelectricity and everything that comes from our country's natural resources.

Can we be proud to be Canadians? Yes, we can and we must. The same goes for all natural resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also opposes the bill. The two parties that will be voting against Bill S-5 are the Green Party and the Conservative Party, but they will do so for completely different reasons.

We think this is a bad bill. It runs counter to the goal of modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The hon. member talked about Bill C-69, which, for the Greens, was also a bad bill. I also voted against Bill C-69 because it establishes a system that is entirely at the discretion of a single minister, with no regulations across all federal regulation.

That was more of a comment than a question.

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

Mr. Speaker, as some often suggest, people on opposite sides of the world eventually come together. Perhaps that is why the Greens and the Conservatives will be voting the same way, but obviously for different reasons.

The only thing I would like to add about Bill C-69 is something Alexandre Shields wrote in an article on the subject. He said that the office of the environment minister declined to comment on the matter, because it remains a “hypothetical project”. However, the minister did recall the provisions of the act, which clearly stipulate that a new dam would be subject to the act.

If the Quebec government decides to go ahead with a new hydroelectric dam, Ottawa has no say in the matter.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is an absolute failure. I have a two-part question.

Could the member address how the carbon tax is an absolute failure and how it has failed to reduce emissions?

We, as Conservatives, have significant concerns regarding the amendments passed in the Senate. There are 24 different amendments, 11 of which make the bill significantly worse.

After five years of consultation, how can this be drawn out further? Can he speak directly to the Liberal flip-flop causing the bill to collapse?

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

Mr. Speaker, we just have to look at the facts. After eight years of the Liberal government, people pay more taxes and we still have more pollution. These are the facts. This is why the Liberal carbon tax does not work.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and Quebec's territory.

On April 13, 2022, parliamentarians belonging to all political parties represented in the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion affirming the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in matters of the environment. The elected officials of Quebec unanimously oppose “any intervention by the federal government in matters of the environment on Quebec territory”. The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position and strongly advocates for the interests and values of Quebec in the federal political arena.

That said, in the existing legal framework, the federal government has certain environmental protection responsibilities. Bill S‑5 is part of that effort. Unfortunately, what is lacking are ambitions to guide action on this important file that is environmental protection.

What is even more concerning is the fact that environmental protection, which has been undermined for some time, requires us to make up for measures that should have been implemented a long time ago. This was discussed in our last debate when my colleague from Repentigny called for prevention to be a fundamental pillar of this law.

Quebec's Environment Quality Act, adopted in 1978, underwent a major reform in 2017. The act seeks to protect the environment and safeguard the species inhabiting it. Quebec law prohibits the deterioration of the quality of the environment or the emission of pollutants or contaminants.

In addition to our Civil Code, the following laws are also related to environmental protection in Quebec and its support: the Sustainable Development Act, the Act to affirm the collective nature of water resources and to promote better governance of water and associated environments, the Natural Heritage Conservation Act and the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife.

I had the honour of working on improving the first Quebec law on sustainable development introduced in 2004 at the National Assembly of Quebec and adopted in 2006. I remember the discussions we had about principles related to the foundation of sustainable development, including the precautionary principle. I will come back to that.

Obviously, I need to seek unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague from Repentigny.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Agreed.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, environmental policy requires trade-offs between health and environmental protection and commercial and industrial interests. If the committee had kept the improvements from the Senate and voted in favour of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois or the ones from the Green Party, this part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would had translated to a much more balanced approach. The refusal to improve the act by relying on best practices will unfortunately allow commercial and industrial interests to dominate and influence decision-making in Canada.

Nevertheless, my colleague from Repentigny secured a victory for environmental protection when it comes to the precautionary principle. In the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the phrase “precautionary principle” was translated as “principe de prudence” in French. In our opinion, this flawed translation did not capture the essence of the precautionary principle, which is to refrain from doing something in case of risk, while “prudence” in French suggests the idea of taking an action and managing its risk. That is very different. The Bloc Québécois believes that recognizing the precautionary principle is essential to framing the implementation of a bill that seeks to protect the environment. The Bloc managed to rally the committee members in favour of correcting this, and we are satisfied and proud of that.

The issue is this. Under the current regime, a substance must be proven to be toxic before it can be banned. In the meantime, such substances may be posing a threat to human or environmental health. Canada is falling behind when it comes to the pace at which new substances are being assessed. If we apply the precautionary principle rather than just being prudent, then, one would hope to see a reversal of the onus of proof, which would mean that authorization would be granted only once a substance has been proven not to be harmful to human or environmental health.

It is true that the intent of Bill S‑5 is to give recourse to those who have been affected by issues involving environmental quality, environmental protection and the protection of living species. The bill seeks to make it mandatory to conduct an environmental impact assessment before carrying out any activity that could pose a high risk to the environment and to create a special access to information regime. It also seeks to regulate projects or activities that might impact wetlands or bodies of water and sets out criminal sanctions for those who break the law.

It is on that last point, the matter of crime, that we see the true scope of the right to a healthy environment.

Our political party is not fooled by the fanfare. Beyond the emotion and promises of the government about the inclusion of this right in the law, no one can deny that its scope will be very limited. If the government were serious about its desire to create a new right, it if had a little political courage, it would propose a round of constitutional negotiations with its partners in the federation to add this right to the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. It would ensure that Canadians could be certain that this right could be enforced and that there would be penalties for breaching it. The government would clearly ensure that it paves the way to greater environmental protection with robust measures carrying penalties.

In case some members are not aware, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is quasi-constitutional in scope. I mention that because this charter established the following in 2006: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.”

Canada's environmental law does not have the same scope.

Enacting laws that are merely symbolic, and therefore not really enforceable, is just wrong.

The details of this right to a healthy environment will be defined and framed by an implementation framework that will not be shared with us until two years from now. The scope of its application will be limited to this single legislative measure. The amendments to Bill S‑5, which proposed balanced, carefully considered legal mechanisms to allow recourse to the courts if that right is violated, were rejected out of hand by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Since we are on the subject, it would be entirely justified to demand that Canada set an example in protecting the environment and human health, which are increasingly at risk because of the toxic substances at the heart of the part of the act covered by Bill S‑5. The government can decide what message it wants to send but, notwithstanding the precautionary principle, are the provisions it describes as improvements in Bill S‑5 really that much of a gain?

My colleague from Repentigny will argue that the absence of a preventive approach and the gutted Senate amendments on public participation perfectly illustrate the bill's missed opportunities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that, at least in good part, we have support coming from the Bloc with regard to Bill S-5.

One of the issues that the hon. member raised was guaranteeing a healthy environment for Canadians. When I look at the legislation, it is a very strong and powerful step in the right direction. I think Canadians as a whole would see it as positive. I have no doubt that it would take a bit of time to work out how we best deal with ensuring that right.

Does the Bloc believe that the only way it could be dealt with is through a constitutional change? If so, does the member really believe that, whether in Quebec, Manitoba or any other jurisdiction, people want to see the Constitution reopened?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: The government talks a great deal about this right to a healthy environment as if it were indeed enshrined in the Constitution. If it were really serious, this right would be constitutionalized.

When the government implements reform and revises laws only to go to committee and oppose improvements—amendments that could improve or, at the very least, guide the government's intentions and expressly reflect those intentions—we have to weigh all that.

When we look at the current government's investments in projects like Bay du Nord, I must say that there is some uncertainty about the government's real desire to improve things.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois member began his speech by talking about Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment and about how Quebec should have full power over environmental matters within its territory.

My question is this. The Bloc Québécois avoided saying much of anything about independence during the past two election campaigns, but this weekend, it talked about little else. Why did this party, which claims to be more separatist than ever, support an amendment by the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Greens and the independents that is a direct attack on a provincial jurisdiction?

More importantly, how is it that, on June 13, 2019, in the House, this member and other colleagues behind him voted in favour of Bill C-69, which gives the federal government veto power over hydroelectric dam projects in Quebec?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague followed the work that was done in committee. One thing is certain. If he wanted to be more accurate, he could have at least said that the Bloc Québécois worked really hard and that its amendment to have the federal government respect Quebec's jurisdictions was not adopted.

My colleague conveniently forgot to mention that because what he is known for in the debates that we have in the House is always putting a partisan spin on things that everyone should agree on and that should be dealt with in a non-partisan manner.

Talking about our convention when we are supposed to be talking about Bill S-5 seems rather obvious and pointless to me. I could have done the same thing, but that is his approach. That is why we are very different, and that is likely why we are not members of the same party.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a concern. We do a lot of work with environmental groups. It is good to have legislation that recognizes a citizen's right to a healthy environment. We support that principle. However, what happens if the Liberal government then goes on to approve oil and gas projects that will jeopardize that right to a healthy environment and exacerbate the climate crisis?

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these oil and gas projects will indeed exacerbate the climate crisis and also negatively impact peoples' health. The primary determinant of health and disease is the environment. That is quite obvious. They cannot see the forest for the trees.

When it comes to the environment, there should be no compromise. Then the government is surprised that it needs to sink huge sums into taking care of peoples' health, at least in Quebec. It is all related. How the government is choosing to invest its money does not suggest a real intention to move forward and improve the right to a healthy environment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, concerning Bill S‑5, I think some members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development would agree that our work was very technical and challenging. I would like to commend my parliamentary assistant. As members, we have the microphone, but by our sides are hard-working people. If not for the tireless efforts of Ms. Grimard, I could never have accomplished the work I accomplished in committee.

Before I get to the heart of the matter, I would like to mention that of the 12 parts that make up the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Bill S‑5 essentially addressed part 5, on toxic substances and all matters related to public participation and its corollary, government transparency. Also included were classification procedures as well as evaluations of groups or classes of substances.

As we know, Canada waited 25 years before launching a review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Over the decades, and around the world, some mechanisms went through a major overhaul. Recognizing the progress made is only right and reasonable. We have examples, which I will now discuss.

We had an opportunity to learn from the regulatory regime in the European Union, the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals, or REACH. It is a regulation to improve the protection of human health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals, while enhancing the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry. It strikes a balance.

It is not perfect, of course. It is exposed to lobby groups and regulatory capture, but the system provides for a true analysis per chemical family. If bisphenol A is evaluated, then there will also be an evaluation of the other molecules, such as bisphenol S. There ends up being an evaluation of a large number of chemicals at a time.

Also, products can be marketed only if there has been an analysis, a management assessment that is based both on the risk and the hazards. The confidentiality of corporate data is not in fact protected, but industry must instead justify the need for confidentiality. This regulatory system, with help from the European Chemicals Agency, allows assessments to be done much quicker. Through this mechanism, we can better prevent these substances from entering the market or being present in our consumer products.

It also makes it possible to take a hybrid approach to the management of toxic substances based on both the risks and the hazards. In our opinion, this approach is essential to promoting the prevention of pollution by these substances. It means that when risks cannot be managed, the authorities can restrict the use of substances in various ways and, eventually, the most dangerous substances must be replaced with less dangerous ones or are simply are banned.

In committee, I asked Joseph F. Castrilli, an environmental law expert with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, questions about the benefits of the European regulation, with which he is familiar. He replied that the Canadian Environmental Law Association had incorporated part of the REACH regulation into its proposed amendments.

These proposed amendments were brought forward by the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. Unfortunately for us, these proposed amendments were not accepted as the Liberal-Conservative coalition voted against them.

The president of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada attended the same meeting. I asked him the same question abut the European regulation. He told me that that was already being done in Canada.

There were two different stories. I did not have time to delve any further, so I could not follow up on issues that should have been raised during the meeting. Clearly, the industry representatives did not like the fact that I had brought up REACH. Within minutes, the Bloc Québécois received an email to further explain REACH. That was not my first time seeing something like that. When someone disagrees with the industry, it is because they lack education, so the industry will simply try to do a better job of explaining things.

I would say that the email was a bit misleading, but the Bloc Québécois had done its homework to get a good sense of this European system. REACH puts the burden of proof on companies, and that is fine. Industry may well recommend designations, but there are sectoral committees of experts and specialists such as the expert group on persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances. I will use imagery that everyone can understand. It is as if there are clearly visible lines on the pavement and REACH adds guardrails to prevent us from falling over the edge.

The European federation's regulatory framework includes various mechanisms that do not exist, or are very tentative, in Canada. That is the truth. These are tools that, although they do not make it entirely safe, certainly have the merit of slowing down what I call the gangrene of regulatory capture and leaving “everything to the industry”.

In Europe, REACH strikes a balance between the risk-based approach advocated by industry and the hazard-based approach, which it wants to avoid at all costs. Furthermore, the REACH process and that of the European Chemicals Agency clearly make room for public consultation. Yes, ordinary citizens have their say, but so do experts in toxicology and medicine, as well as specialists in regulation and standardization. The public consultation process provided for under REACH really does exist. A person would have to be acting in bad faith to say that REACH makes no room for public consultation.

This consultation is so comprehensive that in European public processes, calls for comments and evidence allow interested parties to register their interest, express their views in the preparatory phase and comment on the various documents relating to restrictions. There is transparency; reports are accessible. The public can also submit additional information to justify or support their comments. Canada could have followed that example. Unfortunately, I have to say that it was a missed opportunity.

Let us come back to Bill S‑5. Bill S‑5 was sent to the House with impressive improvements regarding public participation and transparency. Amendments were proposed to clarify and relax some sections without compromising rigour. However, it is a disappointment. We had hoped that, after over 20 years or two decades of waiting, the government would enshrine its oft-repeated claims in law. This could have been such an extraordinary moment. Unfortunately, I would say that transparency, consultation and science were left by the wayside, which I found disappointing.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has reminded the House many times that his department's work has been applauded by environmental groups, which is true. However, he mentioned only the praise and none of the criticism that we see when we read the rest of the news release.

The government and the official opposition both said no to prescriptive language that would have increased the public's access to the consultation process. That would have also helped the government to be more transparent and considerate towards the individuals and civil society groups concerned. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against this progress, which came from the Senate, and against the amendments proposed by the opposition.

I will close by saying that I will continue to be involved in the upcoming legislation to review the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has committed to. As members can see, I do not give up easily. I do have one wish. I hope that when it counts, the government will build and play its role as legislator with integrity for the public and not just for industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide some thoughts in regard to the issue of toxic chemicals. Given the way technology has advanced and given chemists' contributions to many aspects of life in general, we know there is a need to stay on top of the issue of toxic chemicals and chemicals that could be listed as toxic. Does she have any insights that she would like to share with the House with respect to that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for the question.

The advantage, for example, in Europe, is that assessments are done by family of toxic substances, allowing much more to get done. What happens here is that the substance is put on the market and the assessment is done afterward. In the meantime, if the substance is unfortunately declared toxic, it ends up in our consumer products and in the air. That is what I really wanted to see change.

Yes, in Quebec we have our department and our laws, which are much stricter and more restrictive than federal legislation, but the thing is, the environment is across Canada, it is across the planet. Essentially, we have to try to adopt best practices. Unfortunately we had the opportunity to do that, but we did not.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, important things are happening here in Parliament, but important things are also happening in society. On behalf of the NDP, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the sudden passing of the Quebec actor Michel Côté and to offer our condolences to his family and friends. This is an immense loss for the Quebec theatre community and the artistic community. I am sure my colleague shares these sentiments.

On the subject of the environment, it is all well and good to have the right to a healthy environment, but many folks would argue that this does not go far enough and that we should be using a new term, “ecocide”, which would put environmental crimes on the same level as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Instances of massive environmental destruction could then be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court. There is a whole movement known as Stop Ecocide Canada and Stop Ecocide International.

Is this something my colleague could see being useful for defending the environment?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Seriously, I was running around all morning and I did not look at the newspapers. I did not know that Michel Côté had passed away. Truly, when my colleague mentioned it, I was in shock and could hardly believe it. I extend my condolences to Michel Côté's family, and I am certain we will take the time to do so at the appropriate moment.

Now, as for ecocide, I invite parliamentarians to attend an event from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Wednesday with the people from Stop Ecocide Canada. It is an extraordinary idea, an idea that is serious and goes a long way. However, if we do not start talking about it now, it will never happen. I think these people are very courageous to propose the idea of ecocide in an oil-producing country. We have to start somewhere and I congratulate them for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy once again to rise and speak to Bill S-5, a bill that updates the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I have spoken a couple of times on this bill at various stages, and I will repeat some of the messages I gave in those speeches. Here we are at third reading. We have responded to the committee report, which brought forward a few amendments, including one from the NDP that was voted on at report stage. At committee, Conservatives and Liberals took out a statement about tailings ponds in particular. The NDP proposed a report stage amendment that put those words back into Bill S-5 that were put there originally by the Senate, which dealt with this bill before us, and I was happy that amendment passed.

Now, I am a bit discouraged that Conservatives seem to be indicating they are withdrawing their support for this bill just because of those two words, “tailings ponds”, going back into it. I am not sure why they consider the words so toxic that they cannot support the bill, but we are very much of the opinion that it really needs to be highlighted as one of the points in protecting the Canadian environment. We have had so many issues around tailings ponds, not just in the last few months at the Kearl project in Alberta, but in British Columbia with the Mount Polley disaster, and various other situations. This bill, Bill S-5, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act really deal with how we should deal with toxins that are put into the Canadian environment, and tailings ponds are one example of where, when we have disasters, an inordinate number of toxins are poured into the environment at once. I think that requires special mention, and I am glad we see that wording back in this version of the bill here at third reading.

Just to give some background, this bill was first introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-28. It was never brought to the floor of the House to debate, and, months later, the government called an election, so it died on the Order Paper. However, it gave Canadians and environmental law experts and scientists a chance to look at this long-overdue bill to update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as it has been over 20 years. Those people found a lot to be concerned about that was missing from the bill. The government had a year to answer those concerns, yet in this Parliament it introduced the bill exactly as it was in Bill C-28, so there was no attempt to fix things ahead of time, which has caused real problems.

I have even heard Liberals saying in debate at report stage that we need a new version of CEPA, so we need a new bill to update it as quickly as possible to fix those things, because they were found to be out of scope. We cannot expand the scope of bills here in this place once they come to us, and this bill requires some of that desperately, which I will talk about later.

Since CEPA was first introduced over 20 years ago, the number of chemicals that people in Canada are exposed to in their daily lives has grown exponentially. I think it has grown by over 50 times since 1950 and is expected to continue on that trajectory. All these chemicals are toxic in their own way. These are brand-new chemicals that natural environments have no experience with, and we are only discovering, year after year, the impacts of these chemicals on our environment, our health and the health of plants and animals in our environment, even at very small levels. Over the last two decades, science has discovered more about the cumulative effects of even small doses of these toxic chemicals, and without this modernized legislation, Canadians would continue to be exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals.

This is long overdue. Environmental scientists and environmental legal experts have long recognized that. Some of the changes that Bill S-5 would make to CEPA that are significant are the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, and I will talk more about that later; the commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, under the act; strengthening the chemicals management plan, including to take into consideration vulnerable populations, cumulative effects, reproductive and endocrine toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and neurotoxicity; alternatives and class-based assessments to avoid harmful substitutions; and labelling and other-risk communication.

I would like to back up now and just say how Canadians are so proud of this country, and one of the great sources of that pride is our environment. We are blessed to live in a vast country, and our relatively small population, concentrated at the southern border, has given us the impression that our environment will remain clean, healthy and sustainable, no matter what we do to it and no matter what we throw at it. That attitude has, obviously, gradually changed over the last 50 years or so, and now over 90% of Canadians believe that it is important that we have the explicit right to live in a clean and healthy environment. It is very timely that this bill finally recognizes that right.

Last year, on July 28, 2022, the UN General Assembly passed a unanimous resolution that recognized the right to a healthy environment around the world. One hundred and fifty-nine countries already have legal obligations to protect the human right to a healthy environment, but Canada does not. There are environmental bills of rights in Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but there is no federal law that explicitly recognizes the right to live in a healthy environment. Bill S-5 would change that, so it is a positive step forward, but it is important to back up declarations of rights with legislation that enforces those rights.

Unfortunately, the previous version of CEPA was considered unenforceable, and this one is no better. In fact, the Senate committee studying Bill S-5 wanted to fix this enforceability and, quite remarkably, the senators attached this note to the bill when they sent it forward to the House. After they had passed it with the amendments that they could make, they attached this message. I have read this message in each of the speeches I have given, but it is so remarkable that it bears repeating. This is what the Senate committee said:

This committee would like to state their concern that the right to a healthy environment cannot be protected unless it is made truly enforceable. This enforceability would come by removing the barriers that exist to the current remedy authority within Section 22 of CEPA, entitled “Environmental Protection Action.” There is concern that Section 22 of CEPA contains too many procedural barriers and technical requirements that must be met to be of practical use. As Bill S-5 does not propose the removal or re-evaluation of these barriers, this Committee is concerned that the right to a healthy environment may remain unenforceable.

As I said before, the reason the Senate did not amend this bill to make it enforceable is that it was considered out of scope. The real disappointment here, of course, is that the government had a year to fix this. It knew that this enforceability was one of the main concerns people had about Bill C-28 in the previous Parliament, but the government did not fix it. I don't know whether that was just out of incompetence or whether it really did not want to fix it.

This relates directly to the welcome new declaration in Bill S-5 that Canadians have a right to live in this healthy and clean environment, but we need a transparent and open process to hold the government to account with respect to that declaration and to that right.

As I have said, CEPA is primarily concerned with protecting Canadians and their environment from the toxic chemicals we are so good at inventing, producing and pumping into our environment. There has been a fiftyfold increase in those chemicals over the past number of decades. However, CEPA does not concern itself in general with other matters of federal legislation around the environment, such as environmental impact assessments, fish habitat, migratory birds, species at risk, etc., so this declaration of the right to live in a clean, healthy environment has rather narrow coverage. It covers only matters within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I have a private member's bill, Bill C-219, that is called the Canadian environmental bill of rights. It was first written and presented by Linda Duncan, the former NDP MP for Edmonton Strathcona. Ms. Duncan is an expert environmental lawyer who produced this environmental bill of rights and introduced it over three Parliaments during her time here. It passed second reading in 2009 or 2010 and went to committee, but each time she presented it, it did not make it through the full Senate procedure, so it never became law. I was very honoured and happy to present it again as Bill C-219 in this Parliament.

Among other things, it basically takes that right to live in a clean, healthy environment that Bill S-5 talks about and expands it to the other Canadian federal legislation that we have that deals with the environment. It is not a broad-brush approach, but specifically attached to those pieces of legislation. In fact, when the House of Commons legal team was asked whether it was constitutional, the answer was that of course it is constitutional because it is not really an environmental bill; it is a human rights bill. It holds the government to account for doing what it should be doing under those different environmental pieces of legislation that we have at the federal level.

I would like to make it clear that the NDP will be voting in favour of Bill S-5. We are happy that the government has ceded to some of the amendments that we wanted bring in to improve Bill S-5. We did not get all that we wanted, but we think this is an important step forward, and we are certainly happy that there is language about the right to live in a clean and healthy environment that is finally recognized within federal legislation. We are happy that this bill confirms the government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples under the act.

This bill has many shortcomings, some of which I have listed, but one that I have not mentioned is the total lack of anything around air pollution, toxins in the air. This is something that we really have to get into federal legislation, because it is just as important, if not more so, than some of the other forms of pollution we have to deal with.

I am heartened to hear comments from Liberal members that they would welcome a new version of Bill S-5, a brand new update to CEPA that would bring in some of the problems that have been considered out of scope here, especially around enforceability.

As I say, most Canadians, including myself, would be happy to see this bill pass. I know that most parties will be voting for this bill, albeit some reluctantly. I am disappointed to hear that the Conservatives seem to be pulling their support over the tailings ponds issue. I hope that the Senate will deal with it promptly, so that we can enjoy its benefits and quickly start the process of crafting that new bill that will make CEPA even stronger. That act would truly protect Canadians and ensure that we, along with our children and grandchildren, can continue to live in the clean and healthy environment that is our right.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Going out of second reading, there was a sense that we would be receiving virtually unanimous support. Although the Green Party had reservations in regard to Bill S-5, it looked as though it was going in a forward direction, with the Conservatives actually supporting it. Having listened to Conservatives earlier today, the best I can tell is that they do not want to support the bill because of an amendment related to tailings ponds.

The member was there at the committee stage. Can he explain to the House what he believes is so substantial within the amendment that it is now causing the Conservative Party to vote against the legislation as a whole?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I was not there at the committee stage to hear that, but I have heard comments in debate here about it. It was an issue during the debate at report stage. However, the member would have to ask the Conservatives that question. I can only guess, and I would rather not put my suppositions onto this. However, I am disappointed.

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

Mr. Speaker, we originally talked about supporting the bill. We are absolutely for the environment. We are conservationists at heart across the way in the opposition here. However, one thing we are deeply worried about is the government's over-regulation.

I come from northern B.C., where oil and gas is a big part of what we can give the world in terms of reducing pollution. I was also just up in Yukon, talking to them about critical minerals and getting those developed. However, they say that with the government's over-regulation, instead of getting it developed within eight years, it is going to take at least 30 years. Therefore, here we are seeing more red tape being added to getting our resources developed with this legislation.

Can the member answer this question: What is he going to do to actually see some of the good things that Canada produces get to world markets?

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent much of last week in Washington, D.C., with the international trade committee. We talked to quite a number of legislators and congressmen, and almost every one of them brought up this issue: How are we going to get materials mined so that we can get the clean tech of tomorrow going? They all said that what the United States needs is a mining impact assessment system like Canada's system. They held up Canada's system as the shining example of how things should be done.

Therefore, I do not know what concerns the Conservatives have. Apparently, from the outside world, we are seen as leaders in developing mines and developing them properly, so that we have not only a clean environment but also the materials we need for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, now that we are at the last stage of the bill, third reading, it is not that the Green Party has reservations, as my colleague just said. Unfortunately, the Green Party is now against the bill because it would weaken our ability to regulate toxic chemicals across Canada and because it only pretends to create the right to a healthy environment. It is a right that cannot be enforced; it is basically a bumper sticker and not a right.

Again, everyone who is concerned about the environment across Canada and various environmental groups are being told that the government will bring out a new version of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act really soon. What is my hon. colleague's honest assessment of how likely this is and when it may happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. However, I am not holding my breath. I think that if the government wanted to do this right, it would have done it right the first time.

All I would say is that my private member's bill has that enforceability part baked into it and extends it to the other parts of the Canadian federal legislation on the environment. It carves out CEPA, because of issues around that legislation, but I would hope the government would use this as a model to fix CEPA once and for all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with the leader of the Green Party and the suggestion about looking at the right to a healthy environment. At the end of the day, it is incorporated into the legislation. I suspect that what we will see will be more information being provided on the issue of those rights in the coming days, weeks and months ahead.

I think we need to recognize that this is a significant step forward, where we have a government policy, in essence, making it very clear. It is more than just a policy; it is done through legislation. Canadians have a right to a healthy environment.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how important it is to talk about this. There has been a lot of discussion about the environment in general, but when we get a statement of that nature in law, it is a significant step forward. Obviously, it is not going to resolve all the issues. Mechanisms, protocols and so forth need to be established. At the very least, we have a government for the first time that is actually incorporating that sort of a principle in legislation.

Would he not agree that the incorporation of a right to a healthy environment is good for all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I think it is a good idea that we have a right to a healthy environment embedded in some legislation. I would say that the government was so timid about this that when they first brought forward Bill S-5, that right was only in the preamble. It had to be moved into the body of the text to have any legal impact at all. However, we are hearing now that it is unenforceable, as all kinds of civilian actions towards this bill are, and we need that changed.

Yes, this is a step in the right direction. As in so many things with the government, better is always possible. I would hope that we would see some movement very quickly to fix this so that Canadians can truly have that right to live in a healthy and clean environment and back it up with some accountability for government actions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to legislation that will have a very positive impact on Canadians.

If we listen to what Canadians are talking about, we often hear the issue of the environment coming up. Within the Liberal caucus, I can assure people who are following the debate that, whether it is me or members of the Liberal caucus, we have a high degree of sensitivity in wanting to ensure that what we are doing here in Ottawa reflects Canadians' desires and interests in terms of what they are telling us.

Canadians tell us that the environment does matter and that it counts. We have a government in a minority situation. They would like to see members of Parliament, on all sides of the House, recognize the importance of the issue of the environment and start taking actions to support the words we use during an election.

We see the position that the official opposition is taking on the environment. I want to use two examples. Today, it is all about Bill S-5 and what is happening with it. It is about how the Conservative Party has once again made a change towards the environment. I would suggest that this is a negative change. This is consistent with what the Conservative Party did in the last federal election.

We constantly get criticized by the Conservatives regarding a price on pollution. Most Canadians see and recognize the value of this, as do other countries and jurisdictions around the world. They see that pollution should not be free and that there should be a price on pollution. However, only the Conservative Party of Canada here in the House of Commons, from the get-go, said it opposed a price on pollution. After being tuned up by Canadians, it actually said it is now in favour of a price on pollution.

In the last federal election, every one of the members sitting here today actually said they agreed with a price on pollution in their election platform. They all campaigned on it. However, with a new, shiny, ultra-right leader, they now say they do not support a price on pollution.

How is that relevant to the debate we are having today? It is relevant because not that long ago, about two weeks ago, the Conservatives were telling Canadians that they voted in favour of Bill S-5 and they thought Bill S-5 was a good idea. They were right two weeks ago when they were telling that to Canadians. They were ultimately responding, in part, to what their constituents were telling them.

One of the biggest things in Bill S-5 deals with the right to a healthy environment. Imagine taking a statement of that nature and incorporating it into law. This is why I asked my NDP colleague to provide a comment on it. Given what Canadians are telling us about the importance of the environment, how could someone oppose that? How is it possible that the Conservatives would vote against it?

If we want to talk about popping the bubble of hope, that is what the Conservatives have done in recent days. The Conservatives have said that they now oppose Bill S-5. Why did they flip-flop?

[An hon. member]

Because of you. You flip-flop.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they say it is because of me. I do not think I carry that much influence within the Conservative caucus.

I can say that the Conservatives are on the wrong side of yet another important environmental issue. They need to understand that the environment does matter. When they say they are now opposed to it, what are they voting against? They are voting against what their leader often talks about: common sense.

Why would one oppose the right to a healthy environment? Yes, a lot of regulations and protocols need to be established to ensure that right, but, again, for the very first time, we actually have that now in legislation, the very same legislation that the official opposition is going to vote against when it comes up for a vote.

Maybe we should wait another week or two. Maybe they might change their mind again on this issue.

It is an important vote. We are dealing with additional regulations to deal with toxic chemicals. What is it about toxic chemicals that the Conservative Party of Canada feels, within this legislation, is bad? We are not hearing that.

The Conservatives are not saying that they do not like this legislation because of this particular aspect. They are talking about tailings ponds and apparently that is what caused them to flip, even though, before the amendment, it came to the House from the Senate with it.

One has to start questioning where the Conservative Party is on the environment. I will give part two when we begin debate again after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue speaking to Bill S-5, which we began debating again a few hours ago. When I started my comments, I made reference to the fact that I think there is a great deal of disappointment from many stakeholders due to the Conservative Party's change of heart. If we were to check Hansard from a couple of weeks back when we were talking about Bill S-5, I suspect one would see that I even implied that the Conservative Party was in favour of Bill S-5.

Something has happened in the last little while that has convinced the Conservative Party to vote against Bill S-5. I do believe that it is a bad decision by the Conservatives. They still have a little bit of time to think about what they are doing with Bill S-5. I hope they will considerate it once again and adopt their original position of voting in favour of Bill S-5 because it does a wide variety of things, all of which, I believe, support the wishes and desires of many Canadians, the constituents we represent.

It is interesting to look at the legislation. It covers a number of areas that I know Canadians are very concerned about. I wanted to highlight a few of those spots and then maybe go into depth on the issue of our environment and how important it is that, as parliamentarians, we do what we can to support legislation of this nature and broaden that support so it goes beyond just legislation. There are many budgetary measures.

Canadians are watching. They are very much concerned about how politicians are voting on important issues of the day, the environment being one of them. It has been really interesting to listen to the debates, not only now but also during second reading. I had the opportunity to not only address the issue in part but also to listen to a good number of people. Whether it was in the House of Commons, the Senate of Canada, or the standing committees of Parliament, we have had a great deal of debate on this issue.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a substantial piece of legislation that provides a great deal of comfort to Canadians, is being enhanced and given strength after a couple of decades. There are some areas that I know people would be very, very pleased with. There are areas of concern, such as animal testing, for example. We are seeing non-animal testing methods being incorporated to a degree that it is going to be encouraged. I see that as a very strong positive. It is something that should be mentioned during the debate.

It deals with the issue of reconciliation. Thinking about the environment and the stewardship of our environment, how can one not factor in our first nations that have taken such good, quality care of our environment? If we get into the beliefs, heritage and culture of indigenous peoples, we get a very encouraging reflection on our environment and how important it is that we are there for mother earth. We can think of UNDRIP and the recommendations through reconciliation. As a government, we made the commitment to respect UNDRIP and its ruling. We will continue to support that. That is also incorporated into the legislation.

There are ideas about the toxic substances out there and how those substances could be labelled. It is important that the minister has the ability to ensure there is more transparency and accountability on this issue. Again, this is within the legislation. The expectation from the public as a whole is that information is knowledge. Finding out the content of many of these substances through labelling so the government can ensure there is higher transparency is a very strong positive. Those are three of the things I want to provide a brief comment on, as well as emphasize a couple of other points that are really quite encouraging.

I talked about the idea of a right to a healthy environment. This morning there were a number of members who made reference to that aspect of the legislation. It is encouraging to hear members, whether from the Bloc or the NDP in particular, supporting that right in a very tangible way. It was interesting when one member of the Bloc suggested it should be incorporated into Canada's Constitution. Even the principles of protecting the environment and what could be incorporated into the Constitution interest me, but I do not think Canadians as a whole want to see that debate on the Constitution opened up, not at this time, and I suspect, not for quite a while.

However, it emphasizes the point, which is the reason I make reference to it, that people are very much concerned about environmental rights. This bill not only talks about the importance of a right to a healthy environment, but also, for the first time, incorporates it into legislation. I see that as a very strong positive. We will get more details as time goes on as to how that is going to be assured, as well as the protocols and procedures that will be established to ensure Canadians feel comfortable knowing not only that they have that right to a healthy environment, but also that it is incorporated into the legislation for the very first time.

I know the Green Party has some concerns with the legislation. It is with some admiration that I look to the leader of the Green Party and her history on this particular file. She had pointed back, I believe, to 1988. That was the year I was first elected, and I can say that, back in 1988, there was not much debate inside the Manitoba legislature about the environment. There is no doubt that over the last three decades we have seen a substantial growth of public debate and discussion on the issue of the environment. I would acknowledge that she is one Canadian who has been at the forefront of some of these environmental pushes.

Where we disagree would be when I talk, for example, about the right to a healthy environment, I believe it is substantive, but I know members of the Green Party would have liked to have seen more to it than just the statements being referenced in the legislation. The idea of providing strength to the regulations regarding toxic chemicals, and the way in which government needs to play a very strong role, is absolutely critical, and this legislation deals with that.

When I posed questions earlier to, and listened to comments from, in particular the Conservative Party, it was a Conservative member who seemed to be upset with the fact that there are too many regulations and too much paperwork involved with environmental policy. That is what he was making reference to. I would suggest that these regulations are really important.

When we talk about toxic chemicals, legislation does not deal with every aspect of it. Rather, it establishes the framework. We rely on our civil servants to be able to provide the details, through regulations and other forums, so we know we are in fact doing what the principles of the legislation set forward in good part. Therefore, unlike what the Conservative member earlier today was trying to imply, I would suggest to members that good, solid environmental regulations are absolutely critical to supporting the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The member should not be shy in terms of recognizing that, but that was the only member who actually made reference to that. When the critic brought up the issue, I had posed the question in regard to why the Conservative Party had changed its positioning on this legislation, because the only thing we had really heard, officially, coming from the Conservative Party was in regard to the tailings ponds. If the Conservatives were to look at the tailings ponds issue, they would find that there is no substantive difference in terms of what came into the House of Commons during second reading, went into committee and then came back. I would challenge the Conservatives to explain that difference in terms of the degree to which it has caused the Conservative Party to reverse its policy position on the legislation.

The bottom line is that, in regard to the issue of the environment, there is an obligation for legislative measures and budgetary measures. I asked the question in terms of how we mix those things in together, and I want to provide what is a fairly extensive listing of the types of things that we do to complement the legislation. Let us think of it in this way. This is what the Government of Canada is doing today: clean electricity investment tax credit; clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit; clean hydrogen investment tax credit; enhancing the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit; expanding the eligibility for clean technology investment tax credit; a clean electricity focus for the Canada Infrastructure Bank; supporting clean electricity projects such as the Atlantic Loop; securing major battery manufacturing here in Canada; delivering the Canada growth fund; enhancing the reduced tax rate for zero-emissions technology manufacturers; and supporting clean technology projects.

There are so many things that one could actually make reference to with respect to the environment, including banning harmful single-use plastics and making zero-emissions vehicles that much more affordable. I have already commented extensively in the past about the price on pollution. These are all things, both budgetary measures and legislative measures, which the Government of Canada over the last number of years has put into place as a direct response to listening to what Canadians' expectation of the government is. We are bringing that to Ottawa, listening to what our constituents are saying and developing legislative and budgetary measures that support the desires of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and for good reason.

All one needs to do is take a look at what is happening in our environment today and listen to what is happening around the world. Canada does have a leadership role to play, and this is a government that is living up to that leadership. We see every day, through the minister, with respect to the car he drives, the policies he announces and the budgets he presents to the House of Commons through the Minister of Finance, that this is a government that is committed to protecting our environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. It is almost as if my colleague from the Liberal Party has not actually paid that close attention to the developments that have taken place regarding Bill S-5. When this bill came from the Senate, there were some concerns. In fact, his party shared some of the concerns that the Conservative Party shares. At the environment committee, which I am pleased to be a part of, we were able to address some of those concerns and not play politics. We worked very diligently to try to find the appropriate balance that we thought would be acceptable to industry, to environmental advocacy groups and to those involved across the board. Not everybody was happy with the way Bill S-5 came out of committee, but certainly the result at that point in time was something that could be supported fairly broadly.

What is interesting is that NDP members moved this amendment at committee, and the Liberals voted against it. Instead of working together, and instead of putting politics aside for the best interests of industry and environmental groups, the Liberals decided to kowtow to their coalition partners and to throw out the jurisdictional issues surrounding provinces and surrounding some of the very sensitive concerns with tailings ponds. Can this member say why, instead of working together, they decided to play politics with an issue that is so important to so many across this country?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting in terms of everything this legislation has actually gone through, whether in the Senate committee meetings or the House of Commons committee meetings. I was not present during those House of Commons standing committee meetings, but I can tell members, from everything I have heard, that the Conservative Party's decision to not support Bill S-5 was because of an amendment that was brought forward by the NDP and then supported. It is an amendment that raises an issue in a public fashion. In terms of substantive action, though, I am not too sure.

Can the member, who will likely get another question, tell us specifically what it is with that particular amendment that would have an outcome such that the Conservative Party has made the decision to ultimately change and flip-flop its position on Bill S-5, given the importance of this legislation? I would suggest that the member cannot clearly demonstrate that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a little aside to congratulate my colleague from Repentigny for her exceptional work in committee.

In his speech, my colleague spoke about the issue of labelling. The Senate proposed all sorts of amendments concerning labelling, toxic substances and even GMOs.

Why did the Liberals vote against these amendments? Will the Liberals promise to make labelling a focus of the next study to be undertaken soon?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we do know that there would be an ongoing review, because it is mandated from within, with regard to labelling. As I indicated to the member who just provided another question, I was not actually at the committee. What I do know is that there were committee amendments brought forward from different political entities, and I thought there was a high sense of political co-operation. We saw government amendments and also opposition amendments pass, and I suspect there would have been a more detailed answer to the specifics at the committee stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, air pollution has very well documented human health risks, and we now know much more about the human health impacts of air pollution, especially particulate in the sub-2.5-micron range, such as from wood smoke. I am wondering why the bill would not address anything, in terms of binding and enforceable standards for air quality. It seems like a considerable omission.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a former health critic for the Province of Manitoba. The quality of air, whether from stubble burning or forest fires, is an issue that came up periodically when I was acting in that capacity. There is no doubt that emergency facilities, doctors and so forth, fill up. Air pollution is very real. It is tangible. I was not part of every aspect of the legislation. I do not necessarily know exactly what the legislation would do with regard to air quality, but I would concur that it is an issue we should all be concerned about, and I suspect that, at some point in the future, we will even be dealing with it in a more detailed way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was speaking before question period about this, and I know he spoke at length about the Conservative Party's flip-flops when it comes to the environment, in particular on the fact that all 338 candidates for the Conservative Party of Canada in the last election ran on a platform that priced pollution. Now, suddenly they do not, and I have heard only one member in the House actually say she regrets having run on that, and I applaud that member for that. I will not call her out by name, but she did such a great job in doing that.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would agree with me that more Conservatives should heed her leadership and stand up to say they regret having run on that commitment, considering they do not believe in it now.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend from Red Deer—Mountain View's somewhat perplexing and troubling remarks, and one part in particular stood out to me. I think I heard him say that the people warning about the environmental harms of acid rain in the seventies and eighties were “snake oil salesmen”. I wonder whether that is his personal view or it represents the position of the Conservative Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is my personal view, and of course I was not speaking specifically of ozone depletion and that sort of thing. Things have been done to deal with different aspects of this, and looking after our water, looking after our air and looking after our soil are the three things that are environmental. Taking the CO2 in our glasses and saying we should tax it because it is a pollutant does not make sense. We can look at the rate of carbon dioxide now and look at how much is put into greenhouses to get plants to grow properly. That is the aspect we need to look at. Anybody who believes we are just going to take something from 1850 and analyze how things are going to take place is not getting to the point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for representing the views of his constituents in this place. He is an elected member of Parliament. He gets to reflect those views. Despite what other parties may think is indignation and may say to impose indignation on his comments, I want to ask the hon. member what his constituents' views are with respect to the carbon tax itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding there is a lot of agriculture and we looked at the added costs that are involved with an average farm. We did the calculations when it was about $30 a tonne, and at that stage I believe it was around a $10,000 cost. Of course, by the time it gets to $170, we can multiply it through, which is where that cost is.

We are able to kind of tinker around the edges insofar as to say that maybe we could take a look at charges to the fuel they use, but that does not change the other costs that are associated with it, such as the fertilizers they need and the trucking that is associated with products coming in and going out. This is the part where we realize the quantity of agriculture products that are sold around the world, and here we are putting ourselves in a straitjacket in order to satisfy the concept of the Liberal Party that we should have a carbon tax.

They do not have a carbon tax in the U.S., which is our major partner that we are dealing with, and so there is competition against our farmers. Of course the folks in my riding look at it and ask, “Where is the fairness?” These stories we get that say, “Oh well, you're going to get some money back” do not quite cut it with them.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to just keep letting this member speak—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am hearing a lot of “no”.

There is another point of order.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Mr. Speaker, for a member of the House to suggest that another member of the House does not have the right to represent his constituents in this place goes beyond the pale—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I did cut the point of order off.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

On that point of order, I do not want to eliminate anything. I want to hear more of that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We have now fallen into complete debate.

Continuing debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have seconded the motion from the member for Kingston and the Islands just a moment ago. It was a good point.

As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health and the member of Parliament for Milton, I am proud to rise to speak on Bill S-5. It is important to take some time to speak to the work that our government has done on modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is our cornerstone environmental legislation.

In a nutshell, CEPA recognizes a right to a healthy environment, as provided under CEPA. It imposes a duty on the government to protect the right and uphold related principles such as environmental justice. It also requires ministers to develop an implementation framework within two years, and to conduct research to support the protection of the right.

It also is expected to support strong environmental and health standards now and into the future, robust engagement, new research and action to protect populations that are particularly vulnerable to environmental health risks.

On that topic, I think we would be remiss not to recognize that recently in Alberta, there have been tailings ponds leakages into the Athabasca River and various other tributaries that went unreported to communities that were affected downstream. This is exactly the type of activity that we need to prevent and legislate into law as unacceptable, to ensure that we are protecting people from these toxic substances.

In the previous speech, there were some numbers thrown around and I would just like to put into modern context a few of those numbers, if I could. I heard the member opposite refer to 500,000 pounds of material that would need to be extracted to build one car battery.

I completely accept that it requires mining to build a modern car battery. They are up to 1,000 pounds and they are certainly intensive when it comes to mining. That does not go without saying. To put that into context, though, 500,000 pounds is about 226,000 kilograms. That would equate to about 10 years of fuel, if one were to convert that to gasoline. An average car would use about 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms of gasoline every year. Do the math and, unless I have done it completely improperly, I think that equates.

What does it take to get gasoline? That is something that we did not necessarily have the opportunity to measure or consider.

In the context of the oil sands, that requires, every single time some fuel is removed through the process, four tonnes of sand and four barrels of fresh water just to make one barrel of synthetic oil. I will say that again: four tonnes of sand need to be excavated and then four barrels of fresh water need to be used and most of that is then stored in a tailings pond. It is important to recognize that those tailings ponds were never meant to be long-term solutions for that toxic substrate of the process, but they continue to be used in that form and fashion.

What do we get out of one barrel of synthetic oil? One would get 42 gallons of gasoline. That is 160 litres of fuel.

What did that require? It required four tonnes of sand to be removed. Four tonnes of sand is 4,000 kilograms of sand. We are now on a similar metric to what the member opposite was saying needed to be excavated to build one car battery, which would obviously be good for many trips.

I am fortunate enough to drive an electric car and I can say that I have driven 30,000 kilometres in the last year in that electric car without having to use any gasoline.

There is no question that the carbon footprint of one of these electric vehicles is higher on the first day that one drives it compared to an internal combustion engine, but the point is that it does not require any gasoline. If one compares the amount of sand that needs to be removed from the ground in order to produce one litre of gasoline to how much is required to produce a car battery, one realizes that, yes, cars require a lot of mining. We all know that. That is something we should know.

However, we also have to take into consideration how many acres and acres of boreal forest are necessary to clear for oil sands activity and how much water it requires in order to refine that bitumen down to a usable product.

Moving on from the topic of electric car batteries and gasoline, I would like to talk about how this bill, Bill S-5, strengthens the foundation for the management of chemicals and other substances that are found in our environment through industry.

The bill would require an integrated plan of chemicals management priorities, with timelines and annual reporting. It would implement a new regime for toxic substances of highest risk.

It would create a watch-list for substances of potential concern, and consultation on new living organisms that would allow the public to request assessments, and ministers would have to address risks using the best balanced and best placed act.

It is really important to recognize that this is creating a framework for the future that would evolve as technology evolves and as new technologies are implemented and new forms of mining are implemented in our mining sector to go after all of the critical minerals that new technologies would require. Bill S-5 would evolve with it.

This bill would also confirm a focus on assessment of real-life exposures, supporting the shift to safer chemicals, replacing and reducing reliance on animal testing, increased openness, transparency and accountability in decision-making. It would also include amendments that affect all of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, including information gathering, research authorities, reporting on indigenous reconciliation and other confidential business information.

I would like to take a moment to reflect on something a little more personal. When my father's family first came to Canada from Holland, they moved to southwestern Ontario and engaged in agriculture. One of my father's first jobs was picking tobacco around the Tillsonburg area, which was a very common practice. Thankfully, the tobacco industry has fewer customers these days and there are fewer people farming tobacco.

It was not actually the tobacco plant that led to harm to my family so much as the product that was sprayed on those tobacco plants, Roundup is a very common insecticide that is still, unfortunately, used in many agricultural applications these days. It is a herbicide. I thank the member opposite. I do not know everything about this, so I am glad that we are working in a place that allows for us to collaborate a little.

Whatever the pest, Roundup was attempting to prevent the infestation of those tobacco plants. It also causes neurological degenerative diseases, like Parkinson's, which my dad suffers from, I should say lives with these days. He does not like to say that we suffer from diseases. It is very well documented that Roundup causes neurological, degenerative disorders like Parkinson's. My dad has been tested for the type of Parkinson's that he has, and indeed it is associated with a high exposure to herbicides, as my colleague point out. Roundup is in that category.

These chemicals that we have used throughout—

[An hon. member]

Glyphosate. Roundup is a trade name.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Roundup is a trade name, okay. Members can tell I did not grow up on a farm. I picked apples every once in a while. My apple farmer uncle, Gerry, who is now deceased, used to call me “the city boy” when I would come to the farm and pick apples. I guess he was right. Thanks for confirming my wise old Uncle Gerry's assertion that I was a city boy.

Glyphosate caused harm to my family. I will say that my dad has taken on his fight with Parkinson's with quite a lot of consternation. He is a really remarkable guy for managing his disease the way that he has. I do not think it is necessary for people to be exposed to things like that. I would hate to know what types of disorders and diseases tailings ponds and other toxic industrial applications might prove to impact folks with. I hope that we do not see more spillage, because that certainly was devastating for those communities that surrounded that.

Moving on, Bill S-5, known as CEPA, was introduced on February 9, 2022, more than a year ago. Since then, Senate committees and the House of Commons environmental committee have received 105 written briefs. If I compare that to how many briefs we receive at the health committee for similar pieces of legislation, I would say that is a lot. It is probably triple what we received for the most recent bill studying children's health. They have spent, collectively, over 50 hours studying that bill, with a lot of great input from experts, industry leaders and a tremendous number of witnesses at those committee hearings.

They have received over 80 witnesses' oral testimonies, and they have debated over 300 amendments tabled. This is one of the most debated pieces of legislation that we have seen in this House and through the Senate over the last couple of years. This excludes any of those subamendments because, of course, there have been considerable subamendments as well.

I think all members of this House can agree that there has been extensive debate around this bill during second reading in the House of Commons. This bill actually received more debate time than the budget implementation act would usually receive. I do believe we can all agree that it has had its time here to see the light of day.

Prior to those recent amendments, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, CEPA had not been updated in over two decades. Much has happened over the last two decades. A lot of new technologies have come to the fore and there are plenty of new chemicals to account for. We need to ensure they are not having a negative impact on people's health.

During this time, over the last two decades, we have certainly developed new technologies and we have deepened our understanding of toxic substances. Across the board, we are getting better at science, especially climate science. Our environmental legislation needs to reflect this important progress.

It has been said a number of times throughout debate today that this bill is not one that is focused on climate change; it is focused on toxic substances in our environment. I think that is very true. However, at the same time, we need to consider the impact of many of the industries that directly increase climate change and have a negative impact on climate change and warming, as well as the dryness of our climate currently and the incidents of wildfires and other horrendous natural disasters. They are all related, and we need a 360-degree view and a science-guided, evidence-first approach to preventing harm when it comes to the technologies that we are adapting to and all of the new methods by which we are going to get enough energy for transportation and for all the other things, like heating our homes, that we rely on. It is so important that our legislation advances forward with the technology and with all those new developments.

For the first time ever, CEPA recognizes the right to a healthy environment for Canadians. To ensure this right is meaningful and taken into account when decisions are made under CEPA, this bill includes a number of requirements.

For instance, it requires that the government must develop, within two years, an implementation framework describing how this right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of the act. This framework would explain, among other things, how principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity would be considered under CEPA. The framework would elaborate on principles such as environmental justice, meaning avoiding adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, and issues of non-regression for continuous improvement of environmental protection.

CEPA, as it is, is a very technical and lengthy bill. We have heard a lot of testimony from expert witnesses from all backgrounds. I think it is extremely thorough and I am glad it is one that most members in this House seem to support. In debate, we have heard from all parties and it seems like the majority of members do support this bill.

That said, we have also heard from constituents via email. I know I have. I have received some from fantastic, environmentally focused organizations in my riding.

One I want to point out is Sustainable Milton. Sustainable Milton is a group of concerned citizens who regularly take action to advocate for and directly clean up our environment. They are a wonderful group of people, and I want to give them a shout-out. They have led town cleanups in our community. I want to acknowledge that litter is a visual concern, for the most part. In our environment, it is annoying to see litter, but it is nothing compared to toxic substances that are going to have a deleterious impact on our health. However, Sustainable Milton has done a really great job leading these litter cleanups. I am grateful to have taken part in a couple, and I want to thank all of the councillors who led their own cleanups as well with the stewardship of Sustainable Milton.

I would also like to reference the Halton Environmental Network, which was actually cataloguing a lot of that litter and looking into whether some of it had any deleterious impacts on waterways and tributaries. Milton is a bit landlocked, but it has quite a lot of watershed down to the Lake Ontario area and the basin around there.

What we put into our environment matters. It has an impact on habitat, and it has an impact on the water we drink. I want to thank the Halton Environmental Network and Sustainable Milton for their stewardship and action on environmentally focused activities in Milton. I also want to thank them for their emails.

I have received dozens of emails from constituents asking our government to position Canada as a global leader in developing more non-invasive methods, non-animal methods and methods that are less harmful to our health and to the health of animals.

We know that we are connected to our environment, not just through the air that we breathe and the water that we drink, but also through the food chain. A lot of our food is produced locally. Last week, I had the chance to visit Monaghan Mushrooms, a farm in my riding that produces fully three-quarters of the local mushrooms that our community consumes. If someone had a mushroom omelette in the last couple of weeks, I would encourage them to have a look at the label. I would bet the mushrooms were produced in Milton, Ontario. Those are all the button and portobello mushrooms. Then there is also another farm in Milton that produces all the specialty mushrooms. I learned a lot about fungus last week.

What I know is that those mushrooms, as they are being produced, drink the same tap water we do. They require soil, which is produced locally, actually through manure from Woodbine Racetrack. They actually provide a service to Woodbine Racetrack, one of the largest horse-racing facilities in Canada. They take all of the horse manure and put it directly into a compost mix, and that compost is then used to produce mushrooms.

Why am I going on about horse manure and mushrooms? It is because the horses that race at Mohawk racetrack in Milton drink the water from the surrounding area, and if they are like the animals in my life, they sometimes just drink from puddles. They eat grasses and locally produced vegetation, and then their excrement leads to something that is used to produce the food that we consume on a daily basis.

We are all connected through the water that we drink, the air that we breathe and the food that we consume. It is so important to make sure that the toxic chemicals that might exist in only a very small percentage in things like grasses, table water or any of a variety of things do not biomagnify all the way up into something that we consume on a regular basis and then have a deleterious impact on our health.

At committee, members heard from Dr. Chandrasekera, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods, an international expert in this field, who presented technological innovations that have been made in producing viable alternatives to animals for testing. Health Canada is working to address the issue of animal testing outside of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Our government has also passed a motion that would see the requirement to report on the operation of the act with respect to indigenous peoples to be done annually, rather than just once every five years. That revised requirement ensures consistent annual reporting on all issues raised by indigenous groups in relation to this act. These motions will improve transparency and ensure that the government remains accountable.

We know that climate change is a real threat that affects all Canadians, and now more than ever we must have strong environmental protections to protect our health from toxic substances that enter our natural environment. Our country has an opportunity to be a leader in climate policy, and passing an updated, strengthened CEPA is absolutely vital to this.

In closing, I would like to say that in previous speeches today I have heard quite a lot of talk about tailings ponds and whether this is a bill related to climate change. I think I have touched on how it is related to climate change but possibly in more of a tangential way. Climate change is real. I know this is not something that is universally held as a conviction in this House. Unfortunately, some people like to talk about historical accounts as to how much ice was above certain towns or cities in Canada. That probably would not be true if one were to consult a historian or a paleoclimatologist.

However, the fact remains that we have an obligation as a country, as a government, to stand up for the health and wellness of Canadians, and that includes animals and vegetation, because those products do biomagnify into our biology as well.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's last comment talked about the health and wellness of Canadians. I wonder if he would consider the impact of the carbon tax, which is adding thousands of dollars to Canadians' cost of living and fuel costs. It has an impact.

I just want to make a quick comment also that in British Columbia we had something called “AirCare”, which tested vehicles for about two decades. Then it was scrapped because the pollutants from vehicles were reduced so dramatically. I just wonder why the focus is not on technology, as opposed to taxes, which have failed. The Liberals have not yet met any of their climate objectives.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question was about carbon pricing, which is not directly related to CEPA, but I am happy to talk about it.

I would point out that in the great province of my colleague opposite who asked the question, there is no federal backstop program because there is a provincial government that prices carbon, and always has. If I am not mistaken, that was an action by the previous Liberal government in British Columbia. I know there are some members on the Conservative side who sat in that government at the time. Perhaps he knows one of the members opposite who sat in that Liberal government. I know the Liberals in B.C. might have more in common sometimes with some of the members of the Conservative Party here.

Carbon pricing works. That is a truth. That is something the Conservatives universally felt, just a little over a year ago, when they all ran on a promise to implement a carbon price in Canada, but they have had an about-face. The new leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton, does not believe in carbon pricing. At a recent Conservative convention, there was a question as to whether or not climate change exists and it was a pretty tight vote. I do not recall exactly what the breakdown was, but it seems that most Conservative members are still on the fence as to whether or not climate change exists.

However, what is irrefutable is that carbon pricing works. I am grateful for the leadership of British Columbia and the aforementioned Liberal government there that instituted that and proved, decades ago, that carbon pricing is effective at reducing our emissions.

[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.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #336

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion defeated.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak in this place once again. The competition was fierce, but I know that cooler heads have prevailed, and I want to thank everybody who voted to allow me to continue to speak and be recognized by the Speaker. It is not often that it happens that I am asked to continue to speak.

I want to jump into the debate around Bill S-5. It is a bill that has been before the House before and is now coming back after being at committee. This is a bill around toxic substances and how Canada deals with things that enter into our environment, such as commercial products and these kinds of things. I want to start by talking about Alberta's record on a clean environment and the Conservatives' record on tackling some of these issues that have appeared in our history. We heard, and I have spoken about this before, how Conservatives tend to tackle problems as kind of a one-off issue, particularly around acid rain. Conservatives tackled it as a global phenomenon and a global problem, and it is something that I am proud to say that Conservatives did.

Another thing that Alberta tackled and kind of led the country and the world on is the disposal of PCBs. I do not know if members know this, but Alberta leads the world in the disposal of PCBs. There is a waste treatment plant in my riding, near Swan Hills, Alberta and it has mastered the disposal of PCBs. In fact, today, in Alberta, we are PCB-free. They have all been disposed of and dealt with. This is something I am proud of, but I know that many other parts of the country have not dealt with PCBs. In fact, there are warehouses full of PCBs, because it has been cheaper to just house them for the last 50 years, or 30 years, rather than dispose of them.

Alberta has kind of led the way in the disposal of PCBs, and I am excited to say that it was a Conservative initiative. Alberta stands ready. The disposal plant still exists, although, because there are no more PCBs in Alberta, it is lacking business. However, other provinces are welcome to ship their PCBs to Alberta for us to dispose of them, because we know how to do it. We have done it for well over the last 30 years and stand ready to do it for other provinces. However, it is sometimes cheaper to just continue to store them than to ship them across the country, so provinces can just defer the cost of disposal by continuing to store them. The issue of PCBs and PCB disposal is something that I am proud of as an Albertan. Albertans, and particularly the town of Swan Hills, have done an amazing job of figuring that out.

Another area where Alberta has led the way is in used tire recycling. Used tires have been a challenge for the western world since the introduction of the automobile. In Legal, Alberta there is a tire recycling facility. All the tires in Alberta are taxed with a levy on the day they are sold, and that goes into tire recycling. Those tires that are recycled are built into products that we use in our everyday lives. I do not know if members have ever been to a playground that has rubber matting underneath the playground—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

It is called your backyard.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thanks, Caputo.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo that, if he wishes to make comments, he should wait until questions and comments. If he wants to have conversations, he should take them out into the lobby so as not to disturb the House.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock should not be calling members by their first or last names. We do have to have order in the House. If people do not think that this is a serious enough matter to discuss, then I would ask them to step out.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was talking about how Alberta has tackled the used tire problem. Just outside of my riding, in Legal, Alberta, there is a tire recycling facility. It uses used tires to build things such as playground matting, access matting for the oil fields and curb stops. Members may have seen rubber curb stops in parking lots, where, instead of there being a concrete curb stop, it is rubber. That is being manufactured there. Fence panels are being manufactured out of used tires. The facility is finding all of these innovative ways to make used tires into other products that we can use in our everyday lives. That was championed and organized in Alberta about 30 years ago, and I am fairly excited about that as well.

The other initiative that I am surprised to discover does not exist in other parts of the country is the Alberta ditch cleanup program, involving charitable organizations. My daughter has participated in it as part of a fundraiser for her school. The 4-H programs across Alberta work on this as well. The Alberta government donates to charity the cost of the labour that is put into cleaning up the ditches. Teams go out, gather all of the garbage from ditches, put it in orange plastic bags and set the bags at the side of the road to be picked up. This is a program that happens every spring after the snow melts. It has made Alberta a clean and tidy place. All the garbage in ditches gets cleaned up, and I am excited about that. What I was surprised to find is that other provinces do not have these kinds of programs. I was surprised that ditches are not necessarily cleaned up in other parts of the country.

The other thing that I was surprised to find out Ottawa does not have, for example, is the drink container recycling program that Alberta has. For my entire life, there has been a drink container recycling program. When I was a teenager, something that supplemented my income was collecting bottles and cans. I know that many a time in high school, there were fundraisers through bottle drives. We would collect used drink containers and bring them back to get the deposit money. Recycling drink containers to keep them out of the landfill and the environment has been in place in Alberta for a very long time. I was surprised that other parts of the country do not have the same program. I know the drink container program in Alberta has been very successful. It has broad support. It is kind of a circular economy idea and seems to work fairly well.

I also want to note that Edmonton has kind of led the way in terms of waste disposal. It creates power from all of the garbage that comes out of Edmonton. It grinds up the waste, separates out the metals, recycles the metals and makes power out of the rest of the garbage. It has a composting division as well. Edmonton has been recognized around the world as one of the leaders in waste disposal. These are some of the programs and projects that have happened in Alberta that I am really excited about.

Another, more local, initiative that I am pretty excited about as well is the take-it-or-leave-it programs at a lot of Alberta's transfer stations. For those who live in the country, like I do, nobody comes by to pick up garbage, so we have to bring it to the transfer stations ourselves. At many of these places, there are what are called “take it or leave it” sections. If people have things that are not garbage per se, and they do not know what to do with them but want to dispose of them, they can place them in the take-it-or-leave-it section. It is kind of like a garage sale, except that people do not have to pay for the things. If people have items that still have value, but they do not want them anymore, they place them there, and people come and go through that.

Around Grande Prairie, there is a company that is leading the country in styrofoam recycling. I am really excited about that program as well. Styrofoam recycling is something that needs to happen, and a company in Alberta is leading the way on that.

These are all initiatives that come out of Alberta that I am really excited about. They keep our communities cleaner and ensure that our waterways stay clean. Speaking of our waterways, I do not know if members know this, but Alberta waterways are all monitored extensively. If there is a hydrocarbon spill anywhere in the province, if a hydrocarbon gets into a creek somewhere, it will set off a sensor within minutes.

I know that when an ATV tipped over, it set off sensors in the waterways. It was just a bit of fuel that spilled out of an ATV and set off the sensors. There are sensors in all of the waterways around Alberta, and they notify the Alberta government that there may have been a spill in a certain area and to investigate it. That happens within minutes.

I have experienced it. I have watched this kind of thing happen in my own neighbourhood when there has been a spill, and immediately people showed up to jump on the source of that spill and clean up the mess quickly. In one case, a fuel truck tipped over on the highway, and months were spent cleaning that up. That was caught because all the waterways in Alberta are monitored very closely for hydrocarbons. It is something that is unique to the province. I do not think that this happens in other parts of the country.

These are some of the initiatives I wanted to highlight. Albertans are taking care of the place we live, taking care of our environment and ensuring that we live in one of the most pristine parts of the country. The natural beauty of Alberta is unparalleled in the whole country.

As well, there are a variety of natural landscapes in Alberta, from far in the south where we have nearly desert conditions, to the Foothills, the Rocky Mountains, the Prairies, the boreal forest and the wetlands dotted across Alberta. These are places where we play, work and raise our families.

The other thing I wanted to note is the Alberta air monitoring that happens in my riding around the town of Peace River. There is a lot of air monitoring that happens there. I do not think the air monitoring that happens in northern Alberta is something that happens in many places across the country. These are some of the things that Alberta has put in place to ensure that we continue to live in a clean environment.

That brings us to Bill S-5. This has been a challenging bill. There was a particular amendment placed into the bill. We were generally in favour of the bill until there was an amendment placed in the bill by the NDP. It undermines provincial jurisdiction. This is around tailings ponds. It is targeting a particular disposal method, and it really feels like Alberta is being targeted with this particular amendment. It also completely undermines the idea of provincial jurisdiction.

The provinces, in many cases, are responsible for the monitoring and administration of these tailings ponds. These are not things the federal government generally gets involved in. The federal government is now placing itself in the middle and sticking its fingers where they do not belong, in provincial jurisdiction. That has been a thorn in the side of Albertans for a very long time.

Canada is happy to take the resource revenues and it is happy to take income tax revenue from the entire country, but when it comes to allowing us to do the things that we do to build wealth, create value or manage our own resources, the federal government is often sticking its fingers in and saying we cannot do something or we are not doing a good enough job or generally just disrespecting Alberta.

I imagine most Canadians are unaware that Alberta leads the way on all of those things that I talked about before, including the disposal of PCBs, our used tire program, our ditch cleanup program, our drink container recycling programs, the Edmonton waste disposal and styrofoam recycling. I can tell members what Alberta does not do for sure: It does not dump millions of litres of unprocessed sewage into the rivers and streams. That is something that definitely does not happen in Alberta. That is something we have to ensure.

Now we see this repeated trend of the Liberal government: It inserts itself into places of provincial jurisdiction. While I note that this is an NDP amendment and that the Liberals had signalled that they were opposed to that amendment initially, they voted for it at the last minute, which is why we can no longer support Bill S-5.

This is a bill that now places the federal government in competition for regulating tailings ponds. This is entirely a provincial jurisdiction. It is something that Alberta has done very well for a very long time. This is something that Alberta, in terms of keeping our waterways clean, our air clean and our soil clean, is capable of, and it is something that is not the jurisdiction of the federal government. For this amendment to be placed in there at the eleventh hour is extremely frustrating.

There are some other parts of Bill S-5 that we are excited and happy about. There is the repeal of a whole section that is no longer needed. We think that this is an important piece to pull out.

We want to ensure that assessments for new substances that may be toxic are developed within 24 months. We think it is important that there be a decision within 24 months. This allows people to get an understanding that if they propose something, they would get an answer within 24 months. That allows for some stability in this whole system.

It also removes duplicated monitoring that had been happening. There were two separate licensing bodies or monitoring bodies, and because of jurisdictional squabbles, sometimes things would either fall through the cracks or substances would be brought to the wrong authority. This bill would remove the duplicated monitoring that has happened in the past, and hopefully will streamline the process and ensure that substances that are brought forward to be assessed will be assessed properly, in a timely fashion and by the right regulator. We want to make sure of that.

There is the issue of the right to a clean environment. That comes up regularly in this bill as well. There are a whole host of things to be said about it. Conservatives believe that in the environment where we live, the air should be clean and the soil should be clean, and we should not be at risk of being in contact with toxic chemicals that might cause cancer. We should not be in contact with toxic substances. We believe we should have an environment that encourages human health, that ensures that we do not get sick from the places that we live or the air that we breathe or the water that we drink. These are basic principles.

The idea of the right to a clean environment is kind of mentioned in this bill, but it is not fleshed out in a way that is clear. This may lead to some frustrations in terms of the court action happening over these kinds of things. We hope that this right to a clean environment would, over time, be clarified to ensure that people could not take the government to court over it, saying that they feel their environment is not clean enough. That is not what we want to see happening with this right to a clean environment; we want it to ensure that the government works to ensure that wherever one lives in Canada, the air is clean, the soil is clean and the water is clean.

With that, I will wrap up my comments. I look forward to questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the commentary from my colleague opposite.

I wish to amplify the voice of a northern Alberta indigenous leader who has accused Imperial Oil of a nine-month cover-up over a massive release of toxic oil sands tailings on land near where his band members harvest foods. That is Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. He said, “During that nine-month period, ACFN had many meetings with [the oil company], including a sit-down, face-to-face between myself and the vice-president.... We have land users in the area that hunt and fish animals that could have been exposed to these deadly toxins....”

The article states that 5.3 million litres of water escaped from a dam that was meant to capture tailings. No public notification was made about that. This bill would change those types of obligations. Almost 19% of the population in the member's constituency is indigenous. Does the member not believe that indigenous people in Peace River—Westlock deserve a healthy environment?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have 14 first nations and four Métis settlements in my constituency and I am well aware of the living conditions in northern Alberta. What I would say is that this bill would do nothing to rectify the situation that is happening in northern Alberta. This is a situation that continues to be under investigation, and I know that the Alberta government has shown concern about the lack of disclosure. This bill would do nothing to rectify the lack of disclosure. While the tailings pond piece was added into it, this bill would do nothing to address that issue.

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

Madam Speaker, congratulations to my colleague from Peace River—Westlock on the results of the previous vote.

One of the most disappointing elements of this debate that is taking place is that at the environment committee, which I am sure this member follows closely, there was a lot of work across the aisle. Whether on the tailings pond issue at a different study or specifically on Bill S-5, there was a ton of work across the aisle to try to take the politics out of an issue that every party found was important. That did not mean that every party got what it wanted, but there was a true and, I believe, genuine effort to see a bill that would result in something that Conservatives could have been happy with and that Liberals leaving the committee process were happy with, and yet when it comes to the process that we are in here today, at report stage the Liberals flip-flopped and voted for an amendment that they voted against at committee.

On this and so many other issues, we see that the Liberals are intentionally politicizing things, with the result of poor public policy outcomes that end up hurting Canadians. These are the very people whom they purport to try to help, yet the actual result is that they are politicizing a whole host of issues, including in this case specifically the environment and toxic chemicals, and they end up taking away from the good work that we should be doing here in Parliament.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, I want to just point out that it was not a Conservative government that gave the City of Montreal a licence to dump raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway. While the situation in northern Alberta regarding tailings ponds is fraught, there is no doubt that no government gave a licence to do that. That is unlike the current Liberal government, which gave the City of Montreal a licence to dump raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway. That is unconscionable.

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

Madam Speaker, if former prime minister Stephen Harper had provided dollars for the infrastructure necessary, municipalities like Montreal would not necessarily have had to dump raw sewage into the water. It takes time to build the infrastructure.

Quite frankly, it is disappointing to see that the Conservative Party has changed its position on this legislation. Does the member feel any sense of remorse in voting against a bill that the Conservatives were going to vote in favour of just two weeks ago, given the principles of toxic chemicals and the right to have a healthy environment, which is something that would be established in this legislation in a substantial way?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sure that the hon. member wishes that it was his turn to answer the question, but it is not. Therefore, I will ask the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock if he wants to answer the question.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have been forthright in that our opposition to this bill is because of the amendment that was brought in, which the Liberals voted against at committee and then voted for at report stage. As Conservatives, we have not changed our position; it is the Liberals that changed their position. We were assured that they were going to vote against the amendment, but they voted for it. That amendment makes all the difference, and that is why we will not be supporting this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague from Peace River—Westlock talked a lot about some of the innovations taking place in the province of Alberta. I know there is currently a provincial election going on there. Certainly, I am sure that he will be following the results closely, as will I.

I would ask him this: Is there anything further he would like to add in terms of how it is technology, not imposing punishment on Canadians, that is truly a way we can move forward as a country? In this way, we can better the environment but not punish the chequebooks and pocketbooks of Canadians.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to how I started my speech. The history and legacy of Conservative governments across the country is this: When we see a definitive problem, we tackle it head on. The acid rain problem and the smelting pots in Newfoundland and Labrador were places where there were significant issues right in front of us, and we dealt with them, which is great.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would request that there be a standing vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 30, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you might find the will to call it 6:59 p.m. at this time, so that we can continue with discussion and debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that 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 read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:16 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Red Deer—Mountain View to the motion at third reading stage of Bill S-5.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #337

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment defeated.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a technical matter with respect to the vote that just took place. I was attempting to vote using the app and received a notice on my phone saying that my vote had been flagged and may not have gone through. I rushed down here to participate in the new vote in person and to confirm that my yea vote was in fact recorded.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Yes, it did go by and was counted as a yes.

The next question is on the main motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House 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.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #338

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 29 minutes.