Canadian Environmental Law Association
1500-55 University Avenue,
Toronto, Ontario
M5J 2H7
info (at) cela.ca
1-416-960-2284
1-844-755-1420
This site contains general legal information for Ontario, Canada. It is not intended to be used as legal advice for a specific legal problem.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Blog: CELA Proposes Amendments to Fix Toxic Substances Law
Blog post by Joseph F Castrilli, CELA Counsel
CELA urges the Government of Canada to adopt amendments CELA drafted to strengthen Bill S-5, the first major bill in Parliament in over two decades that addresses the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Canada’s key law controlling toxic substances. The amendments CELA is proposing follow lengthy submissions it provided to the federal environment and health ministers last month, which cataloged major problems with the government’s bill.
Among the CELA proposed amendments to Bill S-5 include:
CELA’s amendments on this last issue are particularly important. Bill S-5 would: (1) eliminate the word “toxic” from CEPA’s current Schedule 1 List of Toxic Substances; and (2) divide the Schedule into two parts and result in almost 90 percent of the substances being potentially subject to less stringent controls. In CELA’s view these proposed changes by Bill S-5 risk undermining the foundation of the statute as valid federal legislation under the criminal law power of the Constitution as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1997 Hydro-Quebec case. While the chemical industry has applauded the decision to change the title of Schedule 1 to remove the reference to toxic substances, the federal government has provided no compelling reason for its proposed changes to Schedule 1. It is also contrary to the advice the House Standing Committee on the Environment provided Parliament and the Government of Canada in 2007. At that time the House Committee stated in part:
“The constitutional authority for CEPA was narrowly upheld by the Supreme Court in the [Hydro-Quebec] case as a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power. The removal of the word “toxic” would almost certainly invite litigation and, though unlikely, could tip the balance of the court on the issue of constitutionality”.
Bill S-5 goes even further than what the 2007 House Committee warned against doing because the Bill not only removes the word “toxic” from the title of Schedule 1 of CEPA but also creates two tiers of substances, one tier of which is subject to less stringent controls. This kind of change sends the wrong message to the public and the courts. It falls into the category of fixing what isn’t broken and may have the unintended consequence of making what was settled constitutional law up to now, uncertain going forward.
In CELA’s view, there are serious, but solvable, problems with CEPA that the government has not addressed in Bill S-5. The current name of Schedule 1 is not one of those problems but Bill S-5 could turn it into one. It’s time for the public to have its say on this – and other issues – regarding what our federal toxics law should look like and address over the next twenty years.
For more information about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, see our law reform page here.
Share: