What we heard: Proposed plan of priorities

Overview of consultation

On October 5, 2024, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Health Canada (HC) published a proposed Plan of Priorities (the proposed Plan). The publication of the proposed Plan marked the first delivery of this new requirement set out for the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Health in the updated Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). The Plan of Priorities (the Plan) serves as a multi-year, integrated plan for the assessment of substances in Canada, as well as other activities that support the management of substances.

The public was invited to submit comments on the proposed Plan by December 4, 2024. All feedback was reviewed and considered in revising the Plan, set for publication in June 2025. The input provided valuable insights and helped shape the Plan.

This report summarizes what we heard from written submissions during the 60-day public comment period on the proposed Plan.

Who Responded

The consultation generated a total of 690 responses. The comments represented the views of Indigenous organizations, civil society, industry, individuals, a province and other groups, such as academia. The majority of responses received were from individuals (95%). The breakdown of the responses is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Number of respondents by type

What we heard about the Proposed Plan of Priorities

General feedback

Several suggestions were made to enhance the Plan, including:

• highlighting key accomplishments of the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP)
• encouraging revisions to emphasize Canada’s international role in chemicals management; and
• using clearer language to explain how the Plan aligns with other government priorities, such as environmental justice and the Right to a Healthy Environment provided for in CEPA, expanded information with respect to disproportionately impacted^{Footnote 1}  or susceptible populations, and Indigenous Knowledge

Respondents also recommended that the Government of Canada (the Government) clarify that the Plan represents an evolution of the CMP, reflecting improvements stemming from the June 13, 2023, amendments to CEPA through Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act.

Some respondents expressed a need for greater clarity on specific components of the Plan. Others suggested that additional references be made more evident throughout the Plan and that a single list of all related web resources be included.

Substances prioritized for assessment under CEPA

Respondents were generally supportive of maintaining a risk-based approach to assessing substances, building on past experiences to move toward class-based approaches and promoting safer alternatives. Overall, the proposed list of substances was seen as a positive step with clear timelines for substance assessments.

Some concerns were raised with respect to evaluating substances as a class instead of individually, highlighting the perspective that individual assessments are useful for accurately identifying unique properties and risks and avoiding the mischaracterization of specific substances as hazardous. Others pointed out that more attention is needed for populations disproportionately affected by harmful substances. Suggestions included improving data collection on these classes of substances, including leveraging CEPA paragraph 71(1)(c) for generating toxicological data and addressing gaps in cumulative effects.

Some comments also requested greater clarity on the process for how and when substances would be added to the Plan. Certain stakeholders suggested the proposed pace of activities should be accelerated, and that timelines for completing assessments should be incorporated into the Plan.

Many of the comments received recommended that the Government prioritize the assessment and management of 6PPD-quinone (a harmful tire chemical linked to coho salmon mortality). Additionally, some respondents emphasized that they would like to see greater focus on priority issues such as plastics pollution and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

To advance Reconciliation, Indigenous groups recommended that the Government prioritize for assessment substances that may be impacting the environment and health of First Nation lands, waters, air and People. In addition, it was proposed that substances added to the Plan of Priorities resulting from requests made by First Nations through the public request mechanism under section 76 of CEPA be addressed in a timely manner to remove or limit exposure to substances that meet the definition of toxic as set out in CEPA as soon as possible.

Indigenous groups also emphasized the need for the assessment process to apply the precautionary principle, uphold the right to a healthy environment provided for in CEPA, and ensure the protection of disproportionately impacted populations.

Prioritized activities or initiatives that support the assessment, control or other management of risks to the environment or to human health posed by substances

Risk management activities

Some respondents indicated that risk management activities should be balanced with societal impacts, particularly by considering societal benefits.

Industry indicated they wanted to see the Plan demonstrate how risk management instruments will consider product requirements and reliance on substances where viable alternatives are unavailable or require a long time to develop.

Certain respondents also raised the importance of developing risk management measures that ensure safer workplaces, including addressing substances of concern, ventilation, and adoption of rigorous indoor air quality standards.

Promoting safer alternatives and substitutions

Some respondents suggested that the Plan should provide more detail on the promotion of safer alternatives, eco-friendly practices, and the systematic phase-out of harmful substances. In developing risk management approaches, any existing information regarding substitutes and alternatives, including relevant implications for Canada, should be considered.

Communication, engagement, and transparency

Indigenous groups, along with other respondents, expressed a desire for ongoing engagement in prioritized activities and initiatives. In particular, the former stressed the importance of aligning with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) principles, emphasizing Indigenous rights and participation in environmental decision-making.

Various respondents emphasized the importance of ensuring the Plan demonstrates a commitment to clear and transparent communication of findings and decisions.

Giving priority to the prohibition of substances listed to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of CEPA (previously titled “Substances of highest risk regime”)

Industry raised concerns about the potential for increased regulatory burden resulting from future regulations under the new regime prioritizing prohibition for substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction (CMR) and substances that pose the highest risk. They suggested that the Plan should clearly define the new criteria, and that the Government should undertake consultations for any future prohibition instruments and consider essential uses (such as medical technologies) and socio-economic impacts. Other stakeholders emphasized the importance of aligning with the intent of the amended CEPA by prioritizing substances that pose the highest risk. It was recommended that the prohibition of substances classified as CMR be highlighted in the Plan.

Permitting regime for existing substances

With respect to a new permitting regime for existing substances, comments were centered around 2 common themes: advancing transparency and accountability and avoiding regulatory burden. Notably, some CSOs indicated that if the program is to achieve the objective of preventing the misuse of harmful substances via permits and ensuring accountability, then the implementation of clear and strong criteria for permitting restricted activities will be needed. Industry raised concerns regarding the potential for increased regulatory burden and encouraged the Government to review the necessity for such a regime and ensure it is effective and complements existing tools to avoid creating duplication or redundancy.

Disclosure of substances in products

Feedback on enhancing the disclosure of substances of concern in products was largely positive, highlighting strong support for increasing consumer awareness. Disclosure, such as through labelling, was identified as a valuable tool to enable informed consumer choices and promote eco-friendly, low-toxicity alternatives, encouraging the phasing out of toxic components such as sensitizers, carcinogens, endocrine disruptors.

Some respondents indicated that labelling substances as hazardous may cause more confusion than clarity. There was some opposition to the Government’s proposed actions on the labelling of toxic substances in products from a 2022 Notice of Intent, citing concerns over duplication, inconsistency, high costs, and potential breaches of trade agreements.

Stakeholders suggested that digital labelling should complement, not replace, physical labels, and emphasized the importance of aligning labelling approaches with major trading partners to avoid inconsistencies.

Geographically-targeted areas of pollution

Indigenous groups and other respondents encouraged the Government to expand the scope of work beyond air pollution in geographically-targeted areas to include water pollution and cumulative effects. Further, commenters indicated that the proposed activities for addressing air pollution in geographically-targeted areas lack detail, raising concerns about potential conflicts with provincial air quality management requirements. They encouraged collaboration with provincial and territorial authorities to ensure alignment with provincial and territorial jurisdiction, fostering a cohesive approach. Some stakeholders suggested that the Government review new air pollution regulatory instruments for necessity and effectiveness.

Research, monitoring and surveillance

Submissions requested the need for increased funding for research, and support for long-term biomonitoring and targeted studies in high-risk areas and occupations, as well as sustained engagement on the Integrated Chemicals Mixtures Project (ICMP).

Information gathering

Drawing on CMP experience, some respondents noted that the time and resources required to respond to information gathering requests can vary significantly, especially when these requests target class of substances. Some feedback suggested prioritizing individual substances over a broader grouping of substances as a class.

Additional feedback requested the re-evaluation of existing frameworks for data collection to assess trade-offs such as cost, relevance, and timeliness.

Conclusion

This consultation helped inform changes to the Plan and how the Government will proceed with its implementation.

While not all comments led to changes to the Plan, some comments were addressed by providing clarifying language in the Plan (such as expanding on criteria for prohibiting substances that pose highest risk, and expanding on information sharing) or additional text in supporting documentation or web pages (such as the Identification and selection of priorities for assessment under CEPA webpage). In addition, the list of priorities for assessment, rationales and workplan were adjusted or expanded and consider new information, where applicable.

The Government thanks those who contributed their time and knowledge to the development of the first Plan of Priorities under the amended CEPA.