Changes to Canadian Environmental Protection Act received Royal Assent June 23
Among the new changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is a new right to a healthy environment and provisions aimed at curbing animal testing.
Bill S-5, the Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, the first update to the CEPA in over two decades, received Royal Assent on June 23. The amendments add several provisions to CEPA for “replacing, reducing, or refining” toxicity testing on vertebrate animals. Under administrative duties, the federal government has also added a requirement to protect the right to a healthy environment and “uphold related principles, such as environmental justice, non-regression, and intergenerational equity.” The amendments require that within two years, the ministers develop an implementation framework to set out how they will consider the right to a healthy environment in the Act’s administration.
Kaitlyn Mitchell, director of legal advocacy at Animal Justice Canada, says her organization is excited to see tools in the act aimed at ultimately phasing out animal testing.
“We’re extremely satisfied with the changes,” says Mitchell. “I think the new act is a very strong tool that will reduce the use of animals and some of the most painful testing that there is.”
The legislation adds the reduction of animal testing to the government’s duties under the act and adds a requirement for the health and environment ministers to use “scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies” to replace animal testing, she says. The act was previously silent on the promotion of “non-animal methods,” but the amendments require the ministers to publish a plan within two years specifying initiatives to promote the development and implementation of non-animal methods and report on the plan’s progress.
“A plan doesn't sound like the most exciting or useful tool there is,” says Mitchell. “But what we've seen from places like the United States, where they, similarly, have these requirements to create a plan to use alternative methods, what we've seen there is that, actually, it has resulted in serious meaningful change.”
Animal Justice Canada would have liked to see invertebrate animals – animals without a backbone such as octopus or squid – included under the act’s protection.
“One of the things that we wanted to do was make sure that when companies cease using vertebrate animals in testing, that they don't start to incorporate invertebrate animals,” says Mitchell. “That didn't end up in the act, so that is disappointing.”
The inclusion in CEPA of a right to a healthy environment will be an opportunity to elevate the level of environmental protection CEPA provides against pollution and toxic chemicals, says Dr. Elaine MacDonald, program director at Ecojustice, an environmental law charity.
Under Bill S-5, the ministers of health and the environment must consider “all available information” on “vulnerable populations, vulnerable environments, and cumulative effects” when evaluating risk assessments under CEPA. Vulnerable populations will include communities facing higher levels of exposure as well as individuals who are more susceptible to pollution or toxicity, such as the elderly or asthmatics.
The requirement to consider cumulative effects reflects the long-standing recognition that “no one is exposed to a single pollutant or a single toxic chemical at a time, we live in a cocktail of chemicals,” says MacDonald. The amendments broaden the application to include the consideration of cumulative effects on the environment instead of only on humans, “which is a really big win,” she says.
Ottawa has two years to develop the framework for the right to a healthy environment, and there will be consultations.
“We will be involved to push them as hard as possible, to make that as strong as possible,” says MacDonald.
Beyond the key principles of environmental justice, non-regression, and intergenerational equity, it is yet to be determined exactly what form the framework will take. But the legislation reframes the process to an extent, she says. While CEPA was about pushing prevention and sustainable development, now it is about a lot more.
“It’s actually about protecting people from toxic chemicals and pollution. So, if anything, that strengthens the hand of government to take more proactive and stronger action against toxic chemicals and pollution.”
But there are also areas on which the legislation came up short, says MacDonald.
Ecojustice would have liked to see barriers to citizens bringing lawsuits removed, action on air quality, more labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products, more control of genetically modified animals, ocean dumping loopholes closed, more environmental protection on First Nation reserve lands, and restrictions on plastic-waste exports.
