Members of the House of Commons voted on Tuesday to pass Bill S-5, which modernizes Canada’s Environmental Protection Act, introduced in 1999. Changes long-demanded by environmentalists and scientists will soon come into effect.

What is Canada’s Environmental Protection Act?

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is the “cornerstone” of state environmental legislation, according to Ottawa. Several federal regulations were enacted under this law, including those related to greenhouse gas emissions. More directly, CEPA provides a framework for risk assessment and management of chemicals and pollutants. It was founded in 1999 and has never undergone a major revision.

“The right to a healthy environment”

The text, passed by federal lawmakers on Tuesday, enshrines the “right to a healthy environment” for all Canadians. This is the first time such a right has been recognized in Canadian law. “We believe this is an important tipping point,” said Lisa Gue, national policy officer at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Note that the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms already recognizes the right to “live in a healthy environment that respects biodiversity.”

Once the reform is passed, which must go to the Senate one last time, federal environment and health ministers have two years to develop an “implementation framework” outlining how implementation of the law should ensure the right to a healthy environment. They should be based on the principles of environmental justice and environmental non-regression. “It may seem like very specific legal considerations, but this is a major paradigm shift for the country’s most important environmental law,” Ms. said^Me Ford.

The principle of non-regression will complicate the task for governments that want to “unravel” the environmental decisions of their predecessors, points out Géraud de Lassus Saint-Geniès, professor of environmental law at the University of Laval.

Consider the cumulative effect of pollutants

The government must now take into account the “cumulative effects of toxic substances” in risk assessments under CEPA. These impacts on “vulnerable populations” such as pregnant women or Aborigines consuming natural products from polluted areas also need to be considered.

In addition, the government must prioritize “banning” – and not just “virtually eliminating” – the most dangerous toxic substances. We are talking about persistent and bioaccumulative toxic products, but also, above certain thresholds, compounds that are carcinogenic and toxic to reproduction.

The Ministry of the Environment is also required to keep a “watch list” of potentially hazardous substances that have not yet been officially assessed.

What impact will modernization have in practice?

A current example illustrates the possible consequences of modernization.

In late May, Health Canada released the first draft of a report on Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). These “perpetual pollutants” can be found in lubricants, cosmetics and anti-stick agents, among other things. Based on the approach advocated in Bill S-5, the authorities decided to assess PFAS as a broad class of compounds rather than on an individual basis. This reduces “the risk of an unfortunate substitution” in the event of a ban, it says.

“Many details remain to be worked out, but such an example leads me cautiously to believe that the new approach will lead to stronger decisions,” says M.^Me Ford.

A political consensus apart from a few details

Bill S-5 narrowly failed to achieve consensus among Ottawa political parties. The Conservatives ultimately rejected it, believing that one of its aspects encroached on provincial jurisdiction. “We support the main lines of the bill,” said Conservative MP Gérard Deltell during the final debate on the text.

The Trudeau administration has decided to bring this important update to Canada’s Environmental Protection Act through the Senate. What Conservatives failed to understand, however, was that the government had initially agreed to remove a passage on hydraulic fracturing tailings pond monitoring before changing its mind and reinserting it in the text. According to the official opposition, this is the responsibility of the province. The Liberals said they were sensitized by the discharge of oil sands sewage in Kearl, Alberta.

The two MPs from Canada’s Green Party also opposed S-5, saying the bill is indeed a step backwards. The text, approved by the other parties, is back before the Senate, which is due to ratify the amendments within a week.

To see in the video