Senator Pate: Thank you for that, Senator Gold.

Do you have any information or can you shed any light on when exactly we are likely to see Bill C-22 coming back to us so that people with disabilities can be pulled out of poverty?

Senator Gold: 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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Gold. That is very positive.

We know that a motion made in the other place — or in this place — does not necessarily compel the government to act; although, you have said that they will be doing that, which is a positive thing.

As you stated, the alert systems are the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories. My question is: Will the federal government take a leadership role so that it is not just one province or one territory but, in fact, the whole country? Will the federal government take a leadership role to make the alert system a reality, and will the federal government provide some funding to help the provinces and the territories set up the alert system?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

Although I am not familiar with all of the details as to how the $2.5 million will be allocated, as I said, it will be allocated to set up the standing Indigenous table on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and to include the implementation of a Red Dress alert.

I will bring your question to the attention of the appropriate minister or ministers, but this is a very important start on which the federal government is taking the lead.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The Government of Canada has a great deal of respect for the commissioner’s recommendations. That is his job and he does it very well. The government will take into consideration all his recommendations to ensure that the situation improves.

However, again, Bill C-13 contains very important changes and improvements that intersect with your question, and I hope that the bill will receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for this important question. The government understands and believes that maternity and parental benefits need to be both fairer and more flexible.

Currently, the government is analyzing what it has heard from parents, workers, employers, unions and other partners, including entrepreneurs, to ensure that the changes to our EI system are informed by those who feel their impact the greatest. With respect to entrepreneurs, I will raise your concerns with the relevant minister, but I can assure you, honourable colleague, that the government is and continues to be attentive to issues of this kind, to feminist policy concerns. Women hold the top ministerial portfolios in this government’s cabinet, and I can assure you that they look at all issues through a lens that does not ignore the realities and needs of women.

Senator C. Deacon: The government states that the empowerment of women is a top priority, and, to its credit, we now have a gender-balanced Senate, a gender-balanced cabinet and a federal Women Entrepreneurship Strategy.

Policies across government departments, like the CRA decision, often contradict what the government says it cares about. Women entrepreneurship is a top government priority. How do we get through this issue of having a whole-of-government approach around these top priorities? It seems there is no horizontality in so many different areas. They are siloed into one decision or another, but the priority does not permeate across government. I see this as being a constant challenge. What do you see us being able to do in the Senate or the government doing in terms of addressing that problem with horizontality?

Hon. Robert Black: My question is for the Honourable Senator Gold, the Government Representative in the Senate.

[English]

Senator Gold, earlier in the chamber I mentioned the great entrepreneurship and charity of organizations like Dairy Distillery. Not only are they supporting and growing Canada’s economy, they are giving back in times of need and pitching in to support the greening of Canada. Despite their hard work, the company continues to be inhibited by red tape and the lack of governmental support in expanding their work.

As a result, Dairy Distillery has begun construction on an ethanol production facility using dairy permeate to produce some of the greenest ethanol in North America. For every tonne of permeate they process into ethanol, they displace 1.2 tonnes of carbon. They’ve identified 50,000 tonnes of available permeate in Eastern Canada that, if converted to ethanol, would offset 60,000 tonnes of carbon a year.

[Translation]

The thing is, they’ll be building their plant in the state of Michigan.

[English]

This Canadian company has had little government support or any level of regulatory assistance, and could only financially succeed in the United States with support from programs like the Inflation Reduction Act.

[Translation]

If Canada can’t be competitive for its small businesses, we will lose Canadian businesses to the United States.

[English]

My question, Senator Gold, is: How will the Canadian government continue to support Canadian businesses that are competing with companies in the U.S. being supported by the American Inflation Reduction Act, and what will your government do to reduce regulatory red tape that forces Canadian companies out of the country, taking innovative progress and countless jobs with them? Thank you, meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

Our legal system, which involves the exercise of judicial discretion consistent and coherent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is such that decisions whether or not to imprison and detain in prison someone who is charged with an offence are considered by a judge weighing all relevant considerations both constitutional and in law.

Unless I misunderstood your question, Senator Martin, I do not assume that anyone in this chamber would assume that it would be appropriate in a free and democratic society with a constitutional regime of rights to simply take everyone charged with an offence and lock them up until such time as they are tried.

This is not an example of catch and release. This is an example of the administration of justice doing its job properly, as it should.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I don’t accept the premise of the last part of your question.

I absolutely share your disappointment, because for so long, there’s always been a gap between what we want as a country and the reality on the ground. You cited several examples. With Bill C-13, colleague, the government has introduced changes and improvements, a modernization, even, of our official languages regime. These changes mean that the government has a greater obligation to ensure that the substantive equality of the two languages is respected.

We hope that once this bill receives Royal Assent, there will be improvements on the ground in terms of respect for both official languages in all areas of federal jurisdiction.

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.

The Hon. the Speaker: 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.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with regard to this message, this is a message that in my humble opinion is a respectful message from the House, one that values and validates the important and good work that we did in this chamber to improve the bill.

In my remarks earlier this evening, I spoke to some of the amendments that were accepted that strengthened the commitment in the bill — for the first time in an environmental bill — to the right to a healthy environment. I spoke about how the amendments that we introduced that were accepted by the House advance further our important progress to advance reconciliation, how our Senate amendments strengthen the provisions of the bill to reduce our reliance upon animal testing and, of course, how the bill also very importantly modernizes the regime for managing both the risk assessment and the risk management of toxic chemicals, which has been at the heart of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, since its inception.

That now brings me to my closing remarks.

Colleagues, Bill S-5 has been strengthened by the rigorous study by both chambers and by the participation of Canadians in this legislative process. These proposed amendments to CEPA will provide Canadians with an environmental protection law that confronts 21st-century issues with 21st-century science and, I should add, 21st-century commitments to transparency, oversight and review.

The timing of two very important components of Bill S-5, the implementation framework for a right to a healthy environment and the plan of chemicals management priorities, is dependent on the date of Royal Assent and must be completed within two years of that date.

Therefore, colleagues, I encourage you all to agree to the message on Bill S-5 so that we can begin the important work of implementing it. Thank you.