Bill C-298 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act
An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 29, 2007
- Passed the second chamberApril 14, 2008
- Became lawApril 17, 2008
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Lorna MilneSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Maria Minna4 interventions in debatemoved the bill and called it an important step for health and environment with unanimous support expected
- Nathan Cullen2 interventions in debatecalled the issue straightforward for New Democrats and supported action on unsafe chemicals
- Paul Szabo2 interventions in debatecongratulated the member and noted the bill's success through committee
- Tommy BanksSenate · SenatorMoved third reading after committee reported the bill without amendment.
- Mario Silvahonoured the sponsor and linked the bill to needed environmental action
- James Lunneystated the government supports the bill and described it as a very important act
- Blaine CalkinsHe states the government supports the bill as amended and explains related protective actions.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
97% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (460 words introduced, 409 passed). A committee amended it.
transformative changeintent broadened
The bill expanded from adding only PFOS by the Environment Minister to adding PFOS and its salts by both Environment and Health ministers. It also eliminated the original requirements to specify quantification levels and issue related regulations.
- Scope expanded to PFOS and its salts, with two ministers instead of one.
Before: “add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List”
After: “add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List”
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act uses a fixed nine-month deadline and names one specific substance for mandatory addition to an existing list. It overrides two subsections of the parent statute with clear exceptions rather than open-ended discretion.
Clear-cut
“within nine months after the coming into force of this Act”
A fixed calendar trigger removes any subjective timing judgment.“add perfluorooctane sulfonate and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List”
Exact chemical identity and exact destination list leave no room for interpretation of scope.“The Ministers are not required to specify in the regulation referred to in subsection (1) the level of quantification”
Explicit statutory carve-out narrows the duty without relying on ministerial opinion.
Discretion. Ministers retain only the mechanical duty to draft and publish the regulation; no power remains to decide whether, how, or when the addition occurs beyond the nine-month window.
Challenging the law itself. The narrow, time-bound command to perform a single administrative act engages no Charter rights and offers no vagueness or overbreadth foothold.
Disputing a charge under it. Breach occurs only if the Ministers fail to issue the regulation by the deadline, an objective fact that cannot be disputed on interpretive grounds.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.