Bill S-5 · 44th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
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
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 8, 2022
- Debated in principleApril 7, 2022
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 22, 2022
- Passed the second chamberMay 30, 2023
- Became lawJune 13, 2023
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
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.
What it set out to do
On 9 February 2022, Sen. Marc Gold introduced 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 (Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act) and it was given first reading. Bill S-5 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…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
47% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (27,507 words introduced, 21,380 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept the core goal of recognizing a right to a healthy environment but added new principles, definitions, and duties during passage. It expanded the preamble, added limits and equity rules, and broadened research and registry rules.
- Preamble now includes free, prior and informed consent and Indigenous knowledge.
Before: “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;”
After: “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including free, prior and informed consent;”
- New definition of healthy environment added to the Act.
After: “healthy environment means an environment that is clean, healthy and sustainable.”
- Right to healthy environment now subject to reasonable limits and new equity principles.
Before: “protect the right of every individual in Canada to a healthy environment as provided under this Act, which right may be balanced with relevant factors, including social, economic, health and scientific factors;”
After: “protect the right of every individual in Canada to a healthy environment as provided under this Act, subject to any reasonable limits;”
- Implementation framework must now cover intergenerational equity and mechanisms to support the right.
Before: “the balancing of that right with relevant factors, including social, economic, health and scientific factors.”
After: “the relevant factors to be taken into account in interpreting and applying that right and in determining the reasonable limits to which it is subject, including social, health, scientific and economic factors;”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill relies heavily on subjective ministerial judgment and undefined standards rather than fixed rules or objective thresholds. Repeated phrases granting power to act 'in any manner the Minister considers appropriate' or when the Minister 'believes' a risk exists leave core obligations open to argument.
Open to argument
“in any other manner that the Minister considers appropriate”
This phrase appears in nearly every publication and notice provision, replacing fixed methods with open-ended discretion.“If the Minister believes that a therapeutic product may present a serious risk to the environment”
The trigger turns on the Minister's personal belief rather than an objective test or listed criteria.“healthy environment means an environment that is clean, healthy and sustainable”
The definition uses circular and qualitative terms without measurable standards.“the Ministers shall take into account the comments and may amend the proposed plan in any manner they consider appropriate based on those comments”
Amendment power is bounded only by the Ministers' own view of appropriateness.
Clear-cut
“precautionary principle means Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which provides that the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage”
The term is tied to a specific external text rather than left open-ended.
Discretion. Ministers and officials retain wide latitude to choose publication methods, decide when risks exist, extend timelines, amend plans, and determine what information is needed, with most operative sections using 'may' and 'considers appropriate'.
Challenging the law itself. The combination of vague terms such as 'healthy environment' and broad grants of discretionary power based on ministerial belief engages section 7 Charter interests and is susceptible to vagueness or overbreadth arguments.
Disputing a charge under it. Because most duties are framed as discretionary powers rather than strict prohibitions, a person facing an order or notice would face difficulty showing that the Minister lacked authority to act.
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?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.