44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2022 02:00PM
- Oct/19/22 4:58:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, every day, Canadians are exposed to chemicals from polluting industries that spew harmful chemicals into the air we breathe and into the waters of our lakes, our rivers and our oceans. At home, we also experience this in the products we use.
Canadians expect their government to take action to protect them and their families from these toxic substances. They expect their government to ensure that all people have the right to live in a healthy environment. However, Canada's main environmental law to prevent pollution and regulate toxic chemicals is decades out of date. While over 150 other countries already have legal obligations to protect the right to a healthy environment, Canada does not.
These are things New Democrats have been calling on the government to fix for years. While we are glad to see this bill finally come forward, there are some critical and troubling weaknesses and loopholes in the bill.
In the two decades since the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was last updated, the number of chemicals that people in Canada are exposed to in their daily lives has grown exponentially. There has been a 50-fold increase in the production of chemicals since 1950 and this is expected to triple again by 2050. Personal care products are manufactured with over 10,000 unique chemical ingredients, some of which are either suspected or known to cause cancer, harm our reproductive systems or disrupt our endocrine systems.
Over the last 22 years, we have also learned much more about the harmful cumulative effects of these toxic chemicals on our health. Nine out of 10 Canadians have hormone-disrupting chemicals used in consumer products in their blood and urine. We now know that exposure to hazardous chemicals, even in small amounts, can be linked to chronic illnesses like asthma, cancer and diabetes. According to Health Canada, air pollution is a factor in over 15,000 premature deaths and millions of respiratory issues every year in Canada.
This is also an issue of environmental justice.
Frontline workers, who are predominantly women and racialized people, often have higher exposure to hazardous chemicals. We know that, across Canada, indigenous, Black and racialized people are disproportionately impacted by toxic dumps, polluting pipelines, tainted drinking water and other environmental hazards. The former UN special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes has stated, “The invisible violence inflicted by toxics is an insidious burden disproportionately borne by indigenous peoples in Canada.”
This is why this bill is so important. Without modernizing legislation to update chemicals management in Canada, and without the legal recognition of the right to a healthy environment, Canadians will continue to be exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals.
The NDP has a long history of advocating for environmental rights and enshrining the right to a healthy environment in law. My colleague, the MP for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, has a private member's bill on enshrining the right to a healthy environment in an environmental bill of rights. For years, New Democrats have introduced legislation on the right to a healthy environment.
The MP for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has been urging the government to amend Bill S-5 to incorporate the stronger language in his private member's bill. However, the government has not even committed to whether they will accept all of the amendments that the Senate put forward.
While it is good to see the government finally taking steps in this direction, it is important to note that adding the right to a healthy environment in a limited way under CEPA is not the same thing as ensuring that, broadly, all people have the right to live in a healthy environment. There remain troubling limitations on how the right to a healthy environment will be applied and how the right will be enforced.
While the Senate has made several positive amendments to improve the bill, including removing language stating that the right to a healthy environment should be balanced with economic factors, they have also left us with outstanding concerns about the enforcement of that right that they were not able to address.
One of the most disappointing and concerning gaps is that the bill does not touch on the citizen enforcement mechanism in CEPA. The citizen enforcement mechanism is, frankly, broken. It has never been successfully used. The process is so onerous that it is essentially impossible for a citizen to bring an environmental enforcement action. Without a functioning citizen enforcement mechanism, there are serious questions about how the right to a healthy environment can be truly enforced.
Because the government decided not to fix the enforcement of CEPA in the bill, it will be out of scope for amendments. This is a huge gap, but there are also other critical gaps in the bill. It lacks clear accountability and timelines for how toxic substances are managed. It lacks mandatory labelling so Canadians can make informed choices about the products they use. It would not fix loopholes that allow corporations to hide which toxic substances are in their products.
If we want to protect the environment and our health, we have to ensure that we are following the advice of scientists and experts, not the interests of big corporations. These big corporations, made up of some of Canada's biggest polluting industries, have been attempting to stop amendments to Bill S-5, amendments that would strengthen the bill. They are lobbying against better protection for people and for communities. These groups wrote to the Senate, urging the Speaker “to reverse the amendments introduced by the Committee and pass Bill S-5 as it was originally introduced.”
These corporations do not want to be accountable for their toxic pollution. They do not want the right to a healthy environment to be enforceable. They would prefer the bill the Liberals originally put forward. They would prefer a bill with enough loopholes to keep profits and pollution high, but people fundamentally have the right to live in a healthy environment. It is why New Democrats are fighting to amend and fix these loopholes.
In addition to pushing the government to fix the bill, we have also been pushing for an office of environmental justice. The United States already has an office of environmental justice as part of its Environmental Protection Agency, and it has had it since 1992. If we established such an office in Canada, it could not only help coordinate the national strategy on environmental racism, improving our understanding of the burden of preventable environmental health hazards faced by indigenous, Black and racialized communities, but also help us assess possible interventions to address these hazards and ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to enjoy the same level of environmental protection.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is going to need more resources and capacity if the government is truly committed to addressing environmental inequities and upholding the right to a healthy environment. An office of environmental justice could provide structure and additional capacity to carry out this important work.
I find the failure to address enforcement in Bill S-5 the most troubling loophole, but I want to mention a few other gaps in the bill. It does not include legally binding and enforceable air quality standards. It would fail to establish a more open, inclusive and transparent risk assessment process for the evaluation of genetically modified organisms. These are critically important areas the government has chosen not to address, and since the government did not open up these sections, like the section on enforcement, they are areas the government has deemed out of the scope of the bill, so it is not open to fixing them with amendments. This is incredibly troubling.
It has been over 20 years since CEPA was last updated. The environment committee studied this issue and made recommendations on how to fix it five years ago. We have been waiting for this bill, waiting for years, so why have the Liberals left so many gaps, loopholes and issues that still need to be fixed?
Canadians cannot wait another two decades while they continue to be exposed to unregulated and harmful chemicals, while the environment is polluted, and while human health is threatened. We need to protect Canadians now. My New Democrat colleagues and I will continue to push the government to improve the bill, and we will not stop fighting for the right to a healthy environment, a truly enforceable right that ensures that all Canadians can enjoy safe products and a healthy environment for generations to come.
1434 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 5:11:51 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question and also for her work on this issue. I know she has put forward motions to address this.
It is a concern also in British Columbia, so it absolutely is something that needs to be addressed. We need to take strong action to ensure companies are not putting toxic chemicals into our environment that then enter our bodies. If we are thinking about our children and future generations, this is critically important to address.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 5:33:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. I would assume that there would have to be some kind of triaging system. One could ask the government to assess a substance that is totally harmless, so I think there would have to be some funnelling.
However, the government has been assessing chemicals for a long time. This bill goes back to 1988, and I believe we have a lot of expertise in the government on the assessment of toxic substances. I have faith that the government will be able to act on this particular provision, but it is a point that I look forward to discussing. It is a good question and, in fact, I would like to see that question addressed to government departmental officials.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:24:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, as I said in an earlier intervention, there is no doubt that there is a need to update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and that there are some very good things in Bill S-5.
However, surveys have found that there are a lot of toxic substances in ordinary consumer products. We had a study that found very high levels of lead in products that were being sold in dollar stores, including in canned food and children's toys. This bill does not have any requirement for more transparency from corporations about the presence of toxic chemicals in ordinary consumer products. Why is that left out of this version of the bill?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:29:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise to speak to such an important piece of legislation. It is probably one of the more substantive pieces, as it would update and possibly modernize legislation that, in my opinion, is going to have a real impact on Canadians.
Having a right to a healthy environment is something that we should never take too lightly, and I believe this legislation would establish a framework that would provide a much higher level of confidence for Canadians. For the first time, we have a government in Canada that sees that each and every one of us has a right to a healthy environment.
I remember listening to newscasts years ago that talked about the chemicals being put into products that were ultimately sold to children. I am thinking particularly of those small products that infants and young children would put in their mouths, which were primarily imported into Canada. We did not know the chemical makeup of the paints used, for example, but the product was being put directly into the mouths of children and being digested.
There was a time when asbestos was recognized as a wonderful product, and homes in all regions of our country were using the product as a form of insulation. In fact, if we go far enough back in time, we will see that governments were possibly subsidizing and encouraging the consumption of that particular product.
How things have changed, and I see that as a very strong positive. Fast-forward to today. We are now debating a piece of legislation that would deal with many chemicals, carcinogens and toxins, and how we can make a difference in what the public as a whole is seeing in our communities. Whether it is walking down the street or purchasing a product, we would have a better sense of what it means to have a healthy environment in which to live.
Earlier, a member from the Conservative Party asked about this whole idea that any Canadian would be able to request a substance to be assessed, and he tried to portray it in a negative light to my colleague in the form of a question. I, too, will wait as we see the framework flushed out to see how that issue will be appropriately addressed. However, what I take away from this legislation is that, for the first time, we would be empowering the people of Canada to be able to say, “Here is a substance that causes concern from a health perspective that I would like to see the Government of Canada address.”
I see that as a strong, positive measure. The details of that will come out in time, but my colleague answered the question by saying that it would possibly require some sort of triaging to determine priority in terms of possible investigations. I do not know the details of it, but I think the vast majority of people would recognize that this is a significant step forward. When we talk about having a right to a healthy environment, that is the type of example that I will give to the constituents I represent. I think people can relate to that.
Today at second reading we are talking about the principles of the legislation. I am really encouraged that there is a commitment for ongoing reconciliation in the legislation. I made reference earlier to UNDRIP and how that is being brought in, in terms of the calls to action on the issue of reconciliation.
We have a Prime Minister and a government as a whole that recognize the importance of indigenous communities in dealing with legislation such as what we are talking about today. It was a commitment that was given virtually from day one when today's Prime Minister of Canada was first elected not as the Prime Minister but as the leader of the Liberal Party, in third party status here in the House. The Prime Minister made the commitment on the calls to action.
Even within this legislation it might not necessarily be the biggest highlight for all people, but the principle of what is being talked about, and incorporating it into the legislation, is another clear indication of the sincerity of this government wanting to move forward on the issue of reconciliation. It is so vitally important not only for the Prime Minister, but also for all members. Particularly within the Liberal caucus, it is something that is constantly being talked about in a wide variety of different departments.
In talking about existing substances, I do not know much in terms of science, but I do know there are carcinogens and toxins that, as everyone understands and appreciates, cause serious issues for our environment and Canadians in general. There is an established list, at least in part. It is important that we continue to assess and manage those substances. It is important that we keep an open mind, as no doubt there will be a need to add to that list. Something that is talked about within this legislation is the development of a watch-list. I would suggest we could take that back to some of my first comments in regard to Canadians being able to contribute to that.
We often hear from our constituents about the issue of animal testing, how animals are being used as test subjects for different consumer products and more. In a very real way this legislation is moving us forward on that issue in looking at ways in which we could minimize animals being used for testing.
The bill talks about labelling, an issue I made reference to earlier, and how we ensure there is consistency in labelling so there is a better understanding of what is in the contents.
My colleague made reference to the importance of provincial and federal jurisdiction. As a government, we are committed to working with indigenous communities, provincial governments and other stakeholders. Caring for our environment and protecting the health of Canadians is all of our responsibilities. We, as a national government, have a leadership role to play, and I believe Bill S-5 is demonstrating that leadership role.
1032 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:39:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I was beginning to think there was a scintilla of hope that if this bill went to committee, there would be some sort of redemption, but the member opposite convinced me that there is not even going to be an attempt to make these initial decisions based on a scintilla of science. He said that somebody might be afraid or feel that something might be toxic and it is put on the list, but that is not the way we do it. We have a rigorous system for developing the list of toxic chemicals that exist here or that can be brought into Canada. He mentioned lead paint. I am sure he would be comforted to know that in Canada and the United States, we have not been putting lead in paint since 1992, not to say what is on the walls already that should not be.
From what he says, somebody who fears that ground beef could be toxic could have it put on the list and everybody would be denied ground beef and it would have a warning label. Actually, that was proposed earlier this year. I am glad that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency thought better of it.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
