The Hon. the Speaker: Those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is there advice on the length of the bell? It will be one hour. The vote will take place at 5:38.

Call in the senators.

The Hon. the Speaker: He said “no.”

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Batters, do you have a question?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Denise Batters: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-9 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) in clause 12, on page 8,

(i) by adding the following after line 22:

(ii) by replacing line 25 with the following:

“graphs (a) to (e.1);”;

(b) on page 23, by adding the following after line 26:

(c) on page 25, by adding the following after line 32:

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I will be very brief. I will refer to a Supreme Court judgment, Valente v. The Queen, 1985 Supreme Court Reports 673. I understand the rationale behind the amendment is to make federal judges similar to provincial judges in connection with their suspension and the disciplinary process. The judgment says:

Section 11(d) cannot be construed and applied so as to accord provincial court judges the same constitutional guarantees of security of tenure and security of salary and pension as superior court judges for that construction would, in effect, amend the judicature provisions of the Constitution. The standard of judicial independence cannot be a standard of uniform provisions but rather must reflect what is common to the various approaches to the essential conditions of judicial independence in Canada.

I will not repeat what I said previously on security of financial independence, but, quite frankly, to use the case of provincial laws and to try to apply that to federal judges is certainly done, I guess, with a certain lack of understanding of the law.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: I asked, and they said “dispense.”

The Hon. the Speaker: That Bill C-9 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) in clause 12, on page 8,

(i) by adding the following after line 22:

(ii) by replacing line 25 with the following:

“graphs (a) to (e.1);”;

(b) on page 23, by adding the following after line 26:

(c) on page 25, by adding the following after line 32:

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Batters negatived on the following division:

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the amendments from the House of Commons concerning 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:

1.Clause 2, pages 1 and 2:

(a)on page 1, add the following after line 16:

qu’il s’engage à adopter le principe de précaution, si bien qu’en cas de risques de dommages graves ou irréversibles, l’absence de certitude scientifique absolue ne doit pas servir de prétexte pour remettre à plus tard l’adoption de mesures effectives visant à prévenir la dégradation de l’environnement;”;

(b)on page 2, add the following after line 36:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to openness, transparency and accountability in respect of the protection of the environment and human health;”;

(c)on page 2, add the following after line 41:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing a risk-based approach to the assessment and management of chemical substances;”.

2.Clause 3, page 3:

(a)replace line 3, in the English version, with the following:

“not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective”;

(b)add the following after line 13:

3.Clause 4, page 3:

(a)add the following after line 28:

(b)add the following after line 28:

4.Clause 5, pages 3 and 4:

(a)on page 3, add the following after line 42:

(b)on page 4, replace line 9 with the following:

“intergenerational equity, according to which it is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;”;

(c)on page 4, replace lines 13 and 14 with the following:

5.Clause 5.1, pages 4 and 5:

(a)replace line 27 on page 4 to line 3 on page 5 with the following:

(b)on page 5, replace lines 8 and 9 with the following:

“registry is publicly accessible and searchable and is in electronic form.”.

6.Clause 10, pages 6 and 7:

(a)replace line 26 on page 6 to line 23 on page 7 with the following:

(b)on page 7, replace lines 28 to 35 with the following:

7.Clause 10.1, pages 7 and 8: delete clause 10.1.

8.Clause 11.1, page 8: delete clause 11.1.

9.Clause 14, page 9:

(a)replace lines 9 to 15 with the following:

“81, add a substance to the Domestic Substances List if

(b)replace lines 18 to 27 with the following:

10.Clause 15, page 10:

(a)replace line 23 with the following:

“conditions, test procedures and laboratory practices to be followed for replacing, reducing or re-”;

(b)replace lines 26 to 28 with the following:

“classification of a substance as a substance that poses the highest risk.”.

11.Clause 16.1, page 12: replace lines 3 to 21 with the following:

12.Clause 19, pages 15 and 16:

(a)on page 15, replace line 25 with the following:

“and publish a plan with timelines”;

(b)on page 15, replace line 29 with the following:

(c)on page 15, replace lines 37 to 41 with the following:

“the development and timely incorporation of scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies in the testing and assessment of substances to replace, reduce or refine the use of vertebrate animals.”;

(d)on page 16, delete lines 1 and 2;

(e)on page 16, replace line 16 with the following:

“paragraph 68(a), including the manner in which the public may be provided with information regarding substances or products including, in the case of products, by labelling them.”;

(f)on page 16, add the following after line 30:

(g)renumber the subsections of section 73 and amend all references accordingly.

13.Clause 20, pages 17 and 18:

(a)on page 17, replace line 21 with the following:

(b)on page 17, replace lines 23 to 25 with the following:

“specified on the List, if

(c)on page 18, replace lines 1 to 4 with the following:

14.Clause 21, page 20: add the following after line 34:

15.Clause 22, page 21:

(a)replace line 26 with the following:

“amended and the reasons for the amendment in the Environmental Registry and in any other”;

(b)add the following after line 27:

16.Clause 29, page 24: replace line 37 with the following:

“respecting preventive or control actions, including actions that lead to the use of safer or more sustainable alternatives for the environment or human health, in relation to a”.

17.Clause 39, page 31:

(a)replace lines 2 to 17 with the following:

“106, add a living organism to the Domestic Substances List if

(b)replace lines 20 to 23 with the following:

“tion 105(1), 105.1(1) or 112(1) is not being manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada the Minister may delete the living”.

18.New clause 39.01, page 31: add the following after line 34:

19. Clause 39.1, pages 31 and 32: replace line 35 on page 31 to line 15 on page 32 with the following:

20.Clause 44.1, page 35: replace lines 21 to 25 with the following:

21.Clause 50, page 39: replace lines 14 to 16 with the following:

22.Clause 53, pages 40 and 41:

(a)on page 40, replace line 1 with the following:

(b)on page 40, replace line 14 with the following:

(c)on page 40, replace line 27 with the following:

(d)on page 41, add the following after line 29:

23.Clause 55, pages 41 and 42:

(a)on page 41, replace line 32 with the following:

(b)on page 42, delete lines 15 to 35.

24.Clause 57, pages 43 and 44: replace line 14 on page 43 to line 4 on page 44 with the following:

25.Clause 67.1, page 51: delete clause 67.1.

26.Schedule 1, page 53: delete the reference to “section 68.1” in the references after the heading “SCHEDULE 1”.

The Hon. the Speaker: The question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oh — may I dispense?

All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) 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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.