Summary#

This bill would create a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. It sets out a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and expands public access to information, participation, and courts on federal environmental matters. It also amends three federal laws to allow broader public petitions and court review, and to add a right to a healthy environment to the Canadian Bill of Rights.

• Creates a legal right for every resident to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Part 1).
• Requires federal decision-makers and courts to interpret laws using precaution, polluter‑pays, sustainable development, intergenerational equity, and environmental justice (Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law).
• Lets residents request ministerial investigations of alleged environmental offences under federal laws, with 20‑day acknowledgment and 90‑day progress reports (Part 2; ss. 12–14).
• Allows residents to bring “environmental protection actions” seeking court orders to stop or repair significant harm, even if not personally affected (Part 3; s. 17).
• Expands access to judicial review in Federal Court for environmental matters by people not directly affected, subject to tests (Federal Courts Act s. 18.1(1.1)).
• Protects federal public servants from reprisals for using these rights; sets fines up to CAD $25,000 for employer violations (Part 4).

What it means for you#

• Households and residents:

  • You would have a stated right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Part 1).
  • You could access environmental information on a reasonable, timely, and affordable basis (Part 1, Right to access information).
  • You could participate in federal environmental decision‑making, including on laws, regulations, and policies (Part 1, Right to public participation).
  • You could ask the Auditor General to review federal environmental laws, instruments, or policies (Part 1; Auditor General Act s. 22(1)).
  • You could apply to a responsible Minister to investigate alleged offences under federal environmental laws, excluding the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Part 2; “Act of Parliament” definition; s. 12).
  • You could bring a court action to stop or prevent significant environmental harm and seek orders to restore the environment. You would not receive damages, but courts could order payments toward environmental protection or restoration (Part 3; s. 17(3)).
  • You would not need to show you are directly affected to bring a case; the government could not deny you standing on that sole ground (Part 1, Right of access to courts (2)).

• Workers (federal public service):

  • Your employer could not punish you for using rights under this Act, helping an investigation, or giving evidence. A breach would be an offence with a fine up to CAD $25,000 (Part 4; Penalty (3)).
  • Terms “employer” and “employee” follow the Public Service Employment Act, so this protection applies to federal public servants (Part 4 (1)).

• Community groups and NGOs:

  • You could seek judicial review of environmental decisions even if not directly affected, if you raise a serious issue, have a genuine interest, and there is no other reasonable or effective way to get the matter before the court (Federal Courts Act s. 18.1(1.1)).
  • Courts may allow broader participation by interested persons in environmental protection actions (Part 3; Other participants).

• Businesses and project proponents:

  • You could face court actions seeking orders to stop activities likely to cause significant harm, or to require restoration plans and payments for environmental protection (Part 3; s. 17(3)).
  • Courts can issue interim orders. Plaintiffs’ undertakings to pay damages for such orders are capped at CAD $1,000 (Part 3; Undertakings to pay damages (3)).
  • Defences include due diligence, unavoidable harm from authorized conduct with no reasonable alternative, and officially induced mistake of law (Part 3; Defences).
  • Actions are limited to alleged contraventions of federal environmental laws other than the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Part 2 Definitions; applies to Part 3). Harm must be “significant” and is judged on a balance of probabilities (Part 3; Standard of proof; s. 17(2)).

• Federal departments and agencies:

  • Ministers must acknowledge investigation requests within 20 days and report progress every 90 days until completion or lawful discontinuance with reasons (Part 2; ss. 13–16).
  • The Attorney General may receive evidence from ministers during investigations and may intervene or appeal in environmental protection actions (Part 2; Part 3, Attorney General to be served).
  • All federal enactments must be read consistently with listed environmental law principles (Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law).
  • The Canadian Bill of Rights would state that the right to life, liberty, and security includes a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Canadian Bill of Rights, s. 1(a) amendment).

• Courts and tribunals:

  • Must not deny standing to residents solely because they are not directly affected in environmental matters (Part 1, Right of access to courts (2); Federal Courts Act s. 18.1(1.1)).
  • May shift the burden to defendants once plaintiffs show a prima facie case of significant harm (Part 3; Prima facie case).
  • May stay or dismiss actions if the public interest so requires, considering environmental, health, safety, economic, and social concerns (Part 3; Stay or dismissal).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriation amounts are specified in the bill. Data unavailable.
• New mandates: Ministers must process and investigate public applications and issue 90‑day progress reports (Part 2; ss. 12–14).
• Auditor General petitions expanded to include reviews of federal environmental laws, instruments, and policies (Auditor General Act s. 22(1)).
• Courts may see more environmental applications due to broadened standing (Part 1; Federal Courts Act s. 18.1(1.1)). Data unavailable.
• Penalties: Employer reprisals are an offence with fines up to CAD $25,000 (Part 4; Penalty (3)). Revenue impact, if any, is not estimated. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Strengthens accountability by letting any resident bring environmental matters to courts and tribunals, reducing time spent on standing fights (Part 1, Right of access to courts (1)–(2)).
• Improves transparency and oversight through petitions to the Auditor General to review federal environmental laws and policies (Auditor General Act s. 22(1); Part 1, Right to request review).
• Creates clear timelines for ministerial investigations (20‑day acknowledgment; 90‑day progress reports), which may speed up enforcement (Part 2; ss. 13–14).
• Enables timely prevention of harm via interim and final court orders, including orders to restore the environment and to fund protection programs (Part 3; s. 17(3)).
• Embeds precautionary and polluter‑pays principles into how all federal enactments are interpreted, which proponents say will prevent serious or irreversible damage (Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law).
• Protects public servants who report environmental concerns, which may increase reporting and compliance (Part 4; Reprisal — offence; Penalty (3)).
• Adds a right to a healthy environment to the Canadian Bill of Rights, signaling that environmental quality is linked to life, liberty, and security (Canadian Bill of Rights s. 1(a) amendment). Assumes courts will give this amendment meaningful weight; actual impact depends on case law.

Opponents' View#

• Could increase litigation against businesses and the federal government due to broader standing and low cost risk for plaintiffs; costs can be awarded against plaintiffs only if actions are frivolous or vexatious (Part 3; Costs (2); Federal Courts Act s. 18.1(1.1)). Assumes a high volume of filings; actual numbers are unknown.
• Interim injunction risk may rise because plaintiffs’ undertakings are capped at CAD $1,000, which may not cover project delay costs (Part 3; Undertakings to pay damages (3)).
• Mandated interpretation of “every enactment” using environmental principles may create legal uncertainty across many statutes and regulations (Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law). Assumes courts will reinterpret existing regimes; outcomes depend on judicial application.
• New investigation duties (20‑day acknowledgment; 90‑day reports) could strain departmental resources without new funding, causing backlogs (Part 2; ss. 13–14). No funding is specified; workload impacts are not quantified.
• Scope and overlap risks: The process excludes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which could confuse the public and lead to parallel processes (Part 2 Definitions applying to Part 3).
• Federal‑provincial friction is possible because environment is a shared area; broader federal court actions may intersect with provincial approvals. The bill does not address coordination mechanisms. Data unavailable.