Re: Bill S-5, An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, etc. – Supplementary Submissions by the Canadian Environmental Law Association CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION

The changes unsettle what is otherwise settled law under CEPA and send mixed and confusing messages to the public and the courts by doing three things: • Removing the title “List of Toxic Substances” from Schedule 1; • Continuing, nonetheless, to refer in the text of the statute to “the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1” even though the Bill specifically removes that title from the Schedule;. [...] The 2007 House Standing Environment Committee was concerned that meddling with the identification of substances as toxic risked inviting litigation on whether the Act continued to be a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power under the Constitution Act, 1867. [...] Pages 15-19 of our September 2022 submissions, which have been provided to members of the Standing Committee,1 provide references for the above comments and Tab 6 of our September 2022 Proposed Amendments provide amending language to correct the problems posed by the Bill S-5 amendments (See: Submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable on Bill S-5, An Act. [...] Evidence of Other Witnesses Alleged Need for Precision in Schedule 1 Designation of Exposure Routes of Toxic Substances Another problem with the Bill S-5 bifurcation of Schedule 1 is reflected in the evidence of the coalition of industry groups, several of whom also appeared before the Standing Committee on November 25th. [...] Furthermore, comparing the releases to air of 24 CEPA Schedule 1 toxic substances that are also carcinogens common to Ontario and New Jersey for the period 2006 to 2020,6 the same period as the CMP was operative in Canada, also illustrates problems with CEPA ignored by the industry submission and that Bill S-5 would make worse.