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

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is not about what the bill is supposed to be about, but there has been a focus on carbon tax, so I am going to ask my question about that and the fact that the Conservatives are so focused on it. My hon. colleague from the Bloc tried to ask about corporate greed.

The member is from Ontario. We saw the Conservative provincial government take the tax off gas prices in Ontario, yet interestingly, those gas prices have gone right back up. Yesterday I had to pay $1.78 at the pumps. Maybe the member could explain to me why that occurred, if corporate greed is not the reason for that.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say to the NDP on this front is that the last thing we need is an escalation and a tripling of the carbon tax for families, including those in the city of London and across the province of Ontario.

The record that we hold up on Bill S-5 is that the NDP keeps falling for Liberal promises when they do not deliver. It is time for them to stop backing them up. It is time for them to start holding Liberals to account on the environment and everything else.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add some comments on Bill S-5 tonight.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of my colleagues, members of the House and our colleagues in the Senate for the hard work and insightful debate that has already occurred on this legislation. As someone who farmed for decades and who was actively involved in many agricultural organizations, I was always attuned to concerns regarding the federal government's policies and regulations.

When I was first elected in the Manitoba Legislature, Premier Filmon, now the former premier, asked me take on the role of the environment, to be the shadow minister of the environment in Manitoba. I wondered why that would be so important to him at that time. I suddenly realized, with all of my farming and agricultural background, that the environment would probably be one of the most important issues facing agriculture in the next 30 years. It certainly has been in the last 25 years or so. That was a very important role to play.

A lot of the time we would rely on farmer-led organizations to keep us abreast of what the government was doing, particularly on approving crop protection products that we wanted to use as farmers. Some of the time we would get news reports and would have to write our elected officials to tell us what was really happening on the regulatory side of things. Quite frankly, regulations which get determined by departments and Treasury Board cabinet committee do not get sufficient attention in this place.

As farmers know, we must take care of the soil, water and air to ensure that our operations are sustainable. My dad had a quote, something that he taught me very young. He said, “If you look after the land, it will look after you.”

Farmers are stewards of the land, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is good for business. In the past couple of decades, there has been a tremendous amount of innovation in the agricultural sector. From the chemical farmers use, to how they apply them, they are light years from where they were back in the days when my father started farming in Elgin, Manitoba.

On the farm, we used crop protection products all the time. One example of this might be the fact that, when I started growing peas in 1971, there were very few chemicals that could be used on them at all. Today, there is a plethora of products out there to kill things, such as thistles, millet and wild oats, and these were not available to farmers in those days.

Due to the advancements in machinery, seed technology and the use of chemicals, farmers are now producing more food per acre than ever before. Hopefully that trend will continue. As our leader, the new leader of the Conservative Party has repeatedly said, we want to make Canada the breadbasket of the world. We have great opportunities.

However, due to the illegal invasion and brutal war currently being carried out in Ukraine by the Putin regime, we recognize how important the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector is for the world. Some of my colleagues were just referring to the importance of that food production capability earlier this evening.

A lot of the time Canadian farmers would see that crop protection products would be approved in like-minded nations, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and others, while taking a considerable amount of time to get approved in Canada. One example is, when I was a farm leader, we were dealing with products that were used in North Dakota but could not be used in Manitoba because the rules were different between their environmental protection agency and our pest management review board in Canada, in those days. The one that was most important at that time, when I was a wheat grower president, was dealing with fusarium in wheat.

Due to the processes set up, there is always a concern, as I was just referring to, that delays could impede access to the newest and most effective crop protection products available for the agriculture sector. At the end of the day, farmers want—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have enormous respect for my colleague and his deep knowledge of agriculture. I am wondering if we have gone to Private Members' Business on an agriculture bill, or are we on Bill S-5?

I am certainly very interested in agriculture. I just do not see that he talking about Bill S-5.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will continue to remind folks to stick to the bill at hand, but I am giving them lots of leeway here as well.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his concern and for raising that with me. I do appreciate that fact, but I want to point out that we are in favour of moving the bill through second reading. I am, at least, and I am sure my colleagues are as well. However, I think this is very relevant because I am coming to the point where I want to say what I hope happens at committee with the bill. At the end of the day, farmers want a science-led approval process that is based in fact rather than hyperbole.

With that in mind, I will reference some very sage words that my friend and colleague Senator Robert Black said while debating this legislation. His words are incredibly important, so I would like to quote him directly because we have not really had a review since back in the 1980s with regard to soil science in Canada. He said:

...I have recently learned from a few agricultural stakeholders that there are minor concerns about the inclusion of and language around a precautionary principle throughout the bill, particularly since it states that a weight-of-evidence approach and a precautionary approach should be taken.

Members of the agricultural community are concerned that it’s commonly understood that a precautionary approach is used in the absence of data. A weight-of-evidence approach, on the other hand, suggests there is evidence in place.

While the balance between the precautionary principle and weight-of-evidence approaches referenced in the bill isn’t new, as it already is in CEPA, there is a need for clarity as to how it is to be applied to the broader subset of potentially toxic substances this bill brings into CEPA consideration.

It is important to note that there is existing guidance on how the two are balanced by Environment and Climate Change Canada. However, agricultural stakeholders have highlighted the critical need to ensure the end result is as fully informed decision making as possible. And I agree with their concern that Canadian regulators should have a clear mandate to pursue additional evidence where it’s found lacking.

Ultimately, given the important role this bill will play in evaluating substances present in our environment, I believe that where there is an absence of data, there should be legislated processes and mechanisms to request more data. I am hopeful that members of this chamber will consider such a matter at committee and investigate how we can possibly strengthen this bill to ensure its success.

I will close by saying that I echo what Senator Black had to say, and I hope the committee that ultimately studies this legislation, which is what I referenced earlier, invites numerous agricultural witnesses to get a fulsome analysis of their views on the bill. A prime example, in reference to Senator Sparrow, is the study he did and the books he wrote about the development and protection of our soils, which are completely relevant in this whole area. Although some may say that the agricultural industry is a bit of a stretch from Bill S-5, it is completely relevant if we listen to my colleagues who have already spoken to the bill. They noted food security in the future and being able to make sure that we have fertilizer for use in production and for maintaining but hopefully increasing the food supply in the world, because it is under attack as we speak.

I, for one, welcome the modernization management plan in Canada, if done correctly, with the aim of improving the environment and having an efficient process for crop protection products to be approved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting for a number of hours today listening to members, particularly from the Conservative Party, talk about this legislation. Many of their comments have been brought to our attention over issues of relevancy. What I have found throughout the debate is that members have talked about passing this bill and getting it to committee, recognizing that there is a need to look at the possibility of amendments. However, it seems the Conservative leadership behind the curtains in the back room is determined not to allow the bill to get through second reading.

Given the fact that it has been before Parliament now for many months and that everyone in the chamber, at least by party, is supporting the legislation, it seems to me that this is the type of legislation that should pass into committee. I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on the need or desire of the House to see the bill looked at in committee.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is before the House. Many of us on the Conservative side of the House have stated we are in favour of the bill. I even pointed out in my presentation the types of witnesses that I hope go before the committee when it is discussing Bill S-5, this environmental management bill. None of us wants toxic substances.

I pointed out very clearly in my presentation tonight what is required in the agricultural industry to keep it vibrant. There have been huge technological changes and improvements made in the environmental use of products in the agricultural industry, and I use it as an example only because it is one I am familiar with. The same thing applies in forestry, mining and many other industries as well.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of legislation to protect the environment, transparency is very important, particularly regarding access to data. We need to know what we are talking about.

Would the member be in favour of making data on the environmental impacts of various industrial sectors, including agriculture, more accessible?

Perhaps people might realize that our farmers can also be part of the solution, particularly through agroforestry, and realize how carbon capture can be done through agriculture.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course I do. I believe we need to make sure we have as much clear data as possible. That is why I asked for certain types of individuals to come forward in the debate on this very bill. We need that expertise, as the member said, not just in the agricultural industry, but in mining, forestry and others as well, to see how it will impact not only the land but our other natural areas, such as waterways and the air in many of our cities and industrial areas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember being a city councillor in Penticton, where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans told the Penticton planning department that there was a fish habitat area in a chunk of land where we wanted to put in some stairs and it was prohibited. It turned out it was just a golf course's water hazard. There are issues when Ottawa says something falls under a particular definition that is not conducive or recognizable by the locals.

Amendment 19 introduces a new term, “vulnerable environment”, in reference to products that contain a substance or release a substance into the environment. If I were a farmer and someone in Ottawa started talking about vulnerable environments, especially at a time when farmers are having to put resources into new capital, new techniques and different types of new harvesting methods, to suddenly have these uncertain terms being injected into it would concern me. Does it raise the concerns of the member and does he think it raises the concerns of his constituents?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, part of my presentation tonight was to make people aware of the concern the agricultural industry has. I pointed out that we need to have people on the ground who are utilizing these products and systems, because there are many land-use systems that we could be using to improve the types of agriculture production that we are using today, which would help solidify food security in the world. That is what I am referring to here.

We cannot do things that inhibit farmers from being able to feed the world. We are fortunate in Canada that we always have enough food, but we cannot take that for granted, as some of my other colleagues have said tonight. We need to make sure people know the rules around what can be used to produce food.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have five minutes, so I will pick and choose my talking points. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this bill on behalf of the good residents of Brantford—Brant.

By way of background, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 is the first major update since that time. The Liberals have had five years to bring this forward, and they failed to do so in a timely manner.

The bill recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and requires the government to protect this right. However, the right is not defined in the act, and may be balanced with social, economic, health, scientific or other relevant factors.

Bill S-5 also puts in language to highlight the government's commitment to implementing UNDRIP and recognizing the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing the toxicity of a substance, as well as the importance of minimizing risks posed by exposure to toxic substances.

I want to highlight that this is an environmental bill. I would like to take the opportunity with the time I have remaining to highlight the government's failures on the environment.

The first is that the Liberal government has never met a single carbon emissions reduction target in all of its years in government.

The second is that carbon emissions have gone up under the Liberal government.

The third is that the carbon tax is an absolute failure. It has not reduced emissions, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that the majority of Canadians pay more in carbon taxes than they get back in rebates. That is a fact, but what we routinely hear on that side of the House is that the Liberals like to rewrite that narrative.

In 2022, the commissioner of the environment released 10 reports on the performance of the Liberal government in terms of protecting the environment. More than half of the reports show that the government was failing to meet its targets. To echo the comments of several of my colleagues today and on other days, the Liberal government has never had an environmental plan; it has a tax plan.

With respect to Bill S-5, we Conservatives have some concerns about the amendments passed in the Senate. The Senate passed 24 amendments, 11 of which made the bill significantly worse.

I want to go over some key points:

Canada's chemical management plan is a leader in the world.

Bill S-5 modernizes the CEPA and will ensure that a risk-based approach to chemical management is preserved in Canada.

Canada has completed more risk assessments and introduced more risk-management instruments than any other jurisdiction.

The bill recognizes a right to a healthy environment, which we fully support.

Ultimately, the Conservatives will support this bill, but we will be seeking amendments. The bill talks about a healthy environment, but it says nothing about healthy water. I want to point out, as another failure of the government, that when we look at the long- and short-term water advisories across this country, we still have 29 long-term drinking water advisories.

I will end there, as my time is up.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

When we return, the member will have five minutes remaining and then five minutes for a question and answer period.

The House resumed from October 31 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 second time and referred to a committee.