The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15

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 bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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 .

Similar bills

C-28 (43rd Parliament, 2nd session) Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other S-5s:

S-5 (2021) An Act to amend the Judges Act
S-5 (2016) Law An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
S-5 (2014) Law Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act
S-5 (2011) Law Financial System Review Act

Votes

May 30, 2023 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of 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
May 30, 2023 Failed 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 (recommittal to a committee)
May 16, 2023 Passed Concurrence at report stage of 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
May 16, 2023 Failed 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 (report stage amendment)
May 16, 2023 Passed 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 (report stage amendment)
May 15, 2023 Passed Time allocation for 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
Nov. 3, 2022 Passed 2nd reading of 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

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill S-5 proposes amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) of 1999. It recognizes the right to a healthy environment and strengthens the foundation for chemicals management, emphasizing protection for vulnerable populations, encouraging safer alternatives, and accounting for cumulative effects. The bill introduces a plan for chemicals management priorities, promotes transparency, and aims to reduce animal testing.

Conservative

  • Supports bill S-5: The Conservative party supports Bill S-5, believing it represents significant progress in addressing environmental challenges and updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
  • Healthy environment definition: Members emphasize the importance of defining what constitutes a "healthy environment" within the bill, expressing concern over potential ambiguity and impacts on provincial jurisdiction; some would have liked to see national standards for clean air and water included in the legislation.
  • Need for concrete results: The party criticizes the government for being heavy on rhetoric but light on concrete environmental achievements, citing reports from the environment commissioner and the UN that indicate shortcomings in meeting environmental targets and protecting species at risk.
  • Consequentialist lens for policy: Environmental policy considerations should be viewed through a consequentialist lens, meaning that whether emissions are justified in a particular case should be evaluated based on the net effects on human security, happiness, economic well-being, and the environment.

NDP

  • Supports the bill: The NDP supports the bill because it enshrines the right to a healthy environment in federal law and updates regulations around toxic chemicals. They acknowledge the bill's shortcomings but recognize it as a step forward, particularly due to amendments they fought for in committee and the Senate.
  • Missed opportunities: The NDP believes the bill missed important opportunities to strengthen environmental protections, including addressing air quality, regulating tailings ponds, and ensuring more robust public and Indigenous consultations regarding genetically engineered organisms.
  • Call for further action: The NDP urges the government to address the bill's shortcomings through future legislation, particularly focusing on enforceability, air quality standards, and transparent risk assessment processes. They express hope that the government will promptly begin crafting a new bill to strengthen CEPA further.

Bloc

  • Bill supported in principle: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-5 in principle. However, they emphasize that this support does not imply unconditional agreement, particularly regarding jurisdictional issues and federal intrusion into areas of provincial responsibility.
  • Bill not ambitious enough: The Bloc views Bill S-5 as a technical bill that lacks the ambition required to address the climate crisis adequately. They advocate for bolder actions, like those already in place in Quebec, to enshrine the right to a healthy environment in law.
  • Environmental prevention needed: The bill does not give sufficient attention to pollution prevention plans, a crucial tool for environmental protection. They highlight the importance of shifting the focus from managing pollution after it occurs to preventing it in the first place, as well as lamenting that amendments to include this in the bill were defeated.
  • Criticism of Liberal-Conservative coalition: The Liberal-Conservative coalition is criticized for allegedly prioritizing industry interests over environmental considerations and human health. The party claims the coalition undermined amendments aimed at improving consultation, public participation, and transparency in environmental regulations.

Liberal

  • Support for Bill S-5: Liberal members express strong support for Bill S-5, emphasizing its importance in modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and strengthening environmental protection for Canadians and future generations. They highlight the extensive parliamentary process, including significant contributions from all parties, resulting in a stronger bill through numerous amendments.
  • Right to a healthy environment: The bill recognizes the right to a healthy environment for the first time in Canadian federal law, imposing a duty on the government to protect this right. It will require the development of an implementation framework to ensure the right is considered in the administration of CEPA, emphasizing principles like environmental justice and reconciliation.
  • Modernizing chemicals management: Bill S-5 modernizes Canada's approach to chemicals management by prioritizing the protection of vulnerable populations, encouraging safer alternatives, and considering the cumulative effects of chemical exposure. It introduces a plan of chemicals management priorities with timelines, requires regular reviews, and broadens the scientific basis for risk assessments.
  • Transparency and accountability: The bill includes amendments to enhance openness, transparency, and accountability in environmental and health protections, including timelines and reporting requirements for risk assessment and management of chemicals. It also establishes a more transparent regime for confidential business information and includes provisions to reduce animal testing.

Green

  • Disappointment with Bill S-5: May expresses deep disappointment with Bill S-5, saying that it does not deal with key areas like genetically modified organisms or amendments to the ocean dumping act. She argues that despite the inclusion of the right to a healthy environment, the bill fails to make it enforceable, rendering it a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful right.
  • Weakening of toxic chemical oversight: May criticizes the changes to the schedule for toxic chemicals, arguing that they weaken the constitutional foundations of the act, potentially to benefit the plastics industry. She emphasizes that the original act focused on toxic chemicals as a health issue and was jointly administered by the Ministers of Health and Environment, establishing a legitimate exercise of federal jurisdiction.
  • Need for public participation: May advocates for meaningful public participation in the legislation, particularly in decisions related to genetically modified organisms. She highlights the importance of incorporating indigenous knowledge and scientific information into the decision-making process, but notes that some within Environment Canada view it as solely a science-based process, potentially excluding public input.
  • Supports NDP amendment: May supports the NDP amendment to restore changes made in the Senate regarding tailings ponds. She criticizes the process of starting the bill in the Senate and the subsequent deletion of important amendments by the House of Commons environment committee.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Report StageStrengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and support this legislation, Bill S-5. I understand, from what I have been told, that all members of the House recognize its value and are in favour of supporting it. As the House will know, it is a substantive piece of legislation.

It has been a long time since we have seen substantial changes to our environmental laws, which is the essence of what Bill S-5 would do. In many ways, it would make substantive changes that would modernize the law and make a very powerful statement to all Canadians. They have a right to a healthy environment. The essence of Bill S-5 is about ensuring that Canadians recognize they have a right to a healthy environment.

What is interesting is the process that has brought us to where we are today. The legislation has been thoroughly debated in different committees, both at the Senate and at the House of Commons, and it has already had a substantial number of amendments. During the years I was in opposition, it was rare to see amendments, unless of course they were government amendments, but when we think of—

Report StageStrengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle is rising on a point of order.

Report StageStrengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, there is a serious problem. The interpretation is not working. Perhaps some headsets are not working properly. Can that be checked?

Report StageStrengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The interpretation seems to be working.

However, there was a lot of noise in the House, so maybe we can try to keep the noise down so we can all listen to the proceedings.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Report StageStrengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I was referencing the fact that what we have today is very solid legislation. In good part, it is because of all the efforts that have been put into making this legislation what it is today. We could go back to the department and the consultations of hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadians and different stakeholders, all contributing to the original legislation, which went through the Senate. The idea was that by having it go through Senate we would get it passed in a more timely fashion.

The Senate did a fantastic job, as did the House of Commons and colleagues who sit on the standing committee for the House. I referred to the numerous amendments that were proposed.

The Prime Minister has indicated that when we bring in legislation and if there are things we can do to give strength to the legislation as a government, we are open to doing that. It does not have to be a government amendment, and Bill S-5 is a clear demonstration of that. Members from all political parties contributed to the debate and dialogue and listened to the presentations, and many amendments ultimately were accepted. When I started my comments, I was pleased to recognize that members on all sides of the House, like the Senate, would be passing the legislation.

As a parliamentarian over the years, I have seen more people becoming concerned about our environment and what we are doing about it. It is a legitimate concern among Canadians, and it is a growing concern.

When we think about the legislation, we can talk about the toxic substances in the environment. We can talk about how the legislation would set up a better regime for the management of chemicals, or how it would modernize that, or how it would put in place a system that would allow for the science of today to be applied in many different ways with regard to our environment and the types of policy decisions being made. We ultimately will be passing and environmental protection law. All of this will have a significant impact, but it is not just this legislation.

For many years now, we have taken an approach to deal with the environment from both a legislative perspective and a budgetary perspective. Let me give some examples.

When people think of our environment, they often think of plastics. How often do we see plastic grocery bags hanging from trees? It is quite a bit. We can talk about the banning of single-use plastics as an example of a government action that has been received quite well among the public. We can talk about how, through a budget, we were able to support and incentivize people to purchase hybrids or electric vehicles.

We brought in other legislation that made a very powerful statement about net-zero emissions by 2050 and then have regulations to support that, not waiting a year for reports, much like in this legislation. There would be mechanisms put in place to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability. I like the fact that if individual Canadians have specific concerns, a procedure would be in place to allow them to elevate that concern to the government, with some expectation that at least it would be taken into consideration.

When we put everything together and talk about the types of things that we have seen, such as the expansion of land under conservation, the expansion of the number of national parks, bringing in legislation of this nature and supporting the environment through budgetary measures, it has been made very clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been genuine in ensuring that we pass on a healthier, cleaner environment to future generations by putting together a framework that would enable it to continue on.

Report StageStrengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order, but I hope that you stop the clock so the member gets his entire round of questions and comments. We would not want to miss a moment of that.

Report StageStrengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:30 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The clock has stopped.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB

Madam Speaker, several years ago, the environment committee made recommendations regarding national standards for clean air and clean water. Why have these two important elements in protecting the environment been ignored as Bill S-5?

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I do not know all the details in the legislation to the degree that I could actually give a specific answer to the member. However, when we talk about Canadians having that guarantee of environmental rights, I suspect there are ways to take into consideration a wide variety of environmental issues related to what the member has said.

Again, maybe the member was at the committee or is going into details with which I am just not quite familiar enough.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:30 p.m.

Green

Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North spoke about the committee process in his speech.

He might know that our colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, proposed 24 amendments at committee, none of which were supported. The member spoke about the right to a healthy environment. Several of those amendments would have enhanced that right.

Rather than simply considering the right to a healthy environment, one of the amendments would have ensured that the bill would protect the right to a healthy environment. It would have given the opportunity to ensure companies that did not adhere to that right would pay damages for doing so.

What does the hon. member have to say to this?

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that when the Green Party moved the amendment, it was not like members voted against it; it was deemed out of scope. When an amendment is out of scope, we cannot expect it to pass.

The member can be encouraged that many amendments were accepted at the Senate and House of Commons levels, and they were not just government amendments. The government was open to amendments, but there is an obligation when a member introduces an amendment that it be within the scope of the legislation. From what I understand, the chairs at that time did not think it was within the proper scope of the legislation.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear some more details, specifically about whether this bill does anything to guarantee a healthy environment.

How does the member explain the fact that this bill is primarily technical, despite the seriousness of the climate crisis? It is really too bad that the bill's sponsor did not have the guts to consider what might happen after Bill S-5 passes.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I would be inclined to disagree with the member. If we look at the legislation, it would establish a framework that could ultimately be complemented by regulations, which could address some of the concerns she may express during the third reading of Bill S-5.

I believe it enshrines the principles of Canadians to have a right to a healthy environment, and that is a strong and positive step forward.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2023 / 1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, I was part of the committee that studied this. The environment committee spent hours looking at this technical legislation.

The hon. member has zeroed in on one of the cruxes of the legislation, which is the right to a healthy environment. Something we discussed at length was toxicity and how to limit that on animals that could then become part of the food chain. There are also animals being tested in laboratories. We need to get away from the toxicity that harms animal health and therefore our health.

Could the hon. member talk about why it is important to have a healthy environment?