Moved:

That, in relation to 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, the Senate agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the motion proposing that the Senate accept the other place’s message on Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

Before detailing the rationale behind the message, I would like to take a moment to thank our colleagues in the other place for their thorough study and consideration of the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Canadians, including representatives of Indigenous organizations, civil society, academia and industry associations, who participated as witnesses, submitted written briefs and followed the discussions — which at times were very complex — through the course of this parliamentary process. Your contributions have helped to strengthen and improve Bill S-5, and it supported us in our work as parliamentarians. Bill S-5 is better because of those contributions.

The launch of this debate brings us closer to enacting Bill S-5 into law. As you know, Bill S-5 was introduced in the Senate on February 9, 2022. Along with receiving 75 written briefs in its 20-plus-hour study, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources adopted 39 amendments aimed at improving and strengthening the legislation. This chamber then adopted it at third reading on June 22 of last year.

Since then, the bill has been further strengthened as a result of further debate, study and additional amendments in the other place. The other place received 30 written briefs and held 15 meetings, accepted 22 of the Senate’s amendments, while the remaining 17 amendments have been either clarified, further amended or reversed.

Colleagues, this is further confirmation of the respect for the work that this chamber has conducted in applying sober second thought to important legislative initiatives. As we consider Bill S-5 at this message stage, I will provide a brief overview of how it has changed since it was last debated in this chamber nearly one year ago.

Let’s begin with the right to a healthy environment. Last year, the Senate made several improvements to these provisions, many of which were accepted in the other place. For example, with Senator Galvez’s amendment, the Senate replaced the proposed approach, which would have “balanced” the right with other factors, with the more familiar approach of making the right “subject to reasonable limits” and requiring the implementation framework to specify those reasonable limits.

Similarly, by accepting another one of Senator Galvez’s amendments, the committee added the principle of intergenerational equity to the list of principles to be considered in the administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and ensured that the implementation framework would elaborate on mechanisms to protect this right.

I’m pleased to say that these additions have been included in the bill and that our colleagues in the other place made additional changes that strengthen this aspect of Bill S-5.

For instance, they defined the concept of a healthy environment as one that is clean, healthy and sustainable. The implementation framework will clarify what this means for this specific right, so that it is considered a priority in any decision making under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I will now turn to another important aspect of Bill S-5: the amendments made with respect to the vital work of advancing Indigenous reconciliation. As originally introduced, Bill S-5 confirmed the government’s commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. On this point, I would like to recognize the interventions and motions by Senator McCallum to ensure the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples were appropriately recognized in this bill.

In this regard, the Senate committee accepted Senator McCallum’s amendments to add references in the preamble to “. . . free, prior and informed consent . . .” and the importance of “. . . Indigenous knowledge in the process of making decisions related to the protection of the environment and human health . . . .” These amendments were accepted by the other place and remain in the version of Bill S-5 that we are considering today.

Our committee, following an amendment proposed by Senator Arnot, also added a new obligation on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to table a report in Parliament every five years regarding the operation of CEPA — the Canadian Environmental Protection Act — in respect of the Indigenous peoples of Canada. Our colleagues in the other place adjusted this amendment to require a report every year, rather than every five years, and clarified the scope of the findings and recommendations that should be included in that report. In my view, this strengthens the work that was originally proposed in the Senate by requiring more frequent reporting and in clarifying its content.

Another key issue addressed in this bill is reducing reliance on animal testing, which is a priority for the government. However, as introduced, Bill S-5 then only included a high-level pledge to this effect. Believing that the government can do more, the Senate added substantive requirements throughout the bill to accelerate efforts to replace, reduce or refine the use of vertebrate animal testing. In particular, I wish to recognize the efforts of Senator Galvez and others to make sure emerging issues, like this one, are given priority and for reinforcing the need to move faster to eliminate animal testing. I am pleased to say many of these changes were accepted by the other place.

Moving now to the provisions respecting chemicals management, a major theme in Bill S-5 is the protection of vulnerable populations — that is, populations that may be more susceptible or more exposed to harmful chemicals. The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard significant testimony in support of these amendments, but some also suggested that the related concept of a vulnerable environment should be recognized. I am pleased to see that the other place has maintained Senate amendments — ones put forward by Senator McCallum — which added this related concept to the bill.

This leads me to the specific issue of tailings ponds. Last year, the Senate committee adopted Senator McCallum’s proposal to add explicit references to tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing to the non-exhaustive list of information that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change can compel. The Senate, as a whole, adopted this amendment at third reading. These amendments were initially undone by the committee in the other place on the basis that they were redundant, and such information could already be and, in fact, is already collected by Environment and Climate Change Canada. However, recent events in Alberta underscored the importance of understanding the risks to the environment and human health from tailings ponds, and these important Senate amendments were restored during report stage in the other place.

While some may have misgivings about the decision made in the other place to reverse their own committee’s decision, the effect is that the other place has accepted an amendment that we in this chamber had already adopted.

The other place also agreed to the Senate amendments proposed by Senator Kutcher and Senator Galvez, which sought to clarify the processes and approaches to support the shift to safer chemicals.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, in addition to the 22 Senate amendments that were retained, some Senate amendments were also revised or changed in the other place.

For example, our colleagues in the other place felt that the Senate amendments to the provisions regarding pollution prevention plans duplicated powers that already existed under the act, which might cause confusion during the implementation of the plans. Those amendments might also cause technical problems.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development clarified that point by replacing those amendments with an approach that strengthens the provisions by making it possible for pollution prevention plans to prioritize the identification, development or use of safer or more sustainable alternatives to the substance or product in question.

I believe that Senator Carignan makes a good point. It would be a good idea to slow down a bit.

With pleasure, dear colleagues.

I apologize to the interpreters.

It also allows the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to require people to provide written reports their progress in implementing these plans.

Honourable senators, I also want to review a suite of amendments aimed at increasing transparency, accountability and public participation under the act. This was a key issue to many stakeholders and witnesses, particularly under Part 6 of the act, which provides for the assessment and management of new living organisms, often described as genetically modified organisms.

There was significant testimony and debate in this chamber regarding a particular regulatory decision regarding a genetically modified salmon, and this led to the adoption of amendments proposed by Senator Dennis Patterson that departed from the risk-based approach to the assessment of new living organisms by requiring that the ministers determine whether there is a demonstrable need for a new living organism. This subjective value judgment was a new, undefined concept that goes beyond the scope of the government’s mandate for assessing new living organisms. This represented a marked departure from the risk‑based approach under the act.

Senate amendments also required that the ministers ensure meaningful public participation in the assessment of new living organisms, without providing any indication of what that should entail. Our colleagues in the other place adjusted these amendments while maintaining the spirit of the original proposal. Their changes will serve to increase public participation in assessments of certain living organisms under Part 6, specifically vertebrate animals and other prescribed living organisms, by requiring that the ministers publish a notice of consultation and consult with interested persons during the assessment period.

Finally, the committee adopted amendments proposed by Senator Galvez and Senator Dennis Patterson regarding transparency, public participation, accountability and reporting. Amendments included those to broaden the scope of information that must be published in the environmental registry and to require that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry table a report in Parliament regarding manufactured and imported goods.

The committee adopted amendments to these provisions to specify how the registry is to be kept and the scope of the documents published in the registry.

The committee in the other place also deleted the provision added by the Senate that would have required the Minister of Industry to table a report on manufactured and imported goods. After a more in-depth study in the other place, it was concluded that the content of the report was vague and not part of the mandate of the Minister of Industry.

In any case, I would like to remind you that the government is developing a broad labelling strategy that should be released sometime this year.

The committee also accepted Senator Miville-Dechêne’s amendments concerning the confidential commercial information regime. More specifically, it would eliminate the exception related to the requirement to provide reasons when submitting a request for confidentiality. The committee made other amendments in this area to require that the reasons submitted with the request for confidentiality meet the criteria of the Access to Information Act and to ensure that these requests are verified by the minister.

To highlight these amendments pertaining to openness and transparency, the committee in the other place added a commitment to that effect in the bill’s preamble.

I am sorry to interrupt, Senator Gold.

Honourable senators, it is now 6 p.m. and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I’m required to leave the chair until 8 p.m., unless there is agreement that we not see the clock.

No.

Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is therefore suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8 p.m.