Summary#

This bill removes “plastic manufactured items” from the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). It has one clause and takes effect on Royal Assent. It does not change any other part of CEPA or add new programs (Bill, clause 1).

• Removes the legal basis in CEPA to regulate “plastic manufactured items” as a toxic substance (CEPA s.93).
• Could affect federal rules that relied on that listing, such as the Single-Use Plastics Prohibition Regulations (SUPPR) (SUPPR RIAS).
• Does not change other CEPA listings (for example, microbeads remain separately listed).
• Provinces and municipalities can still set their own rules on plastics; this bill does not affect them.
• No timelines are set; the change would be immediate on Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

• Households

  • Federal CEPA powers could no longer be used to ban broad categories of plastic items as “toxic” based on the “plastic manufactured items” listing (CEPA s.93). Availability of certain single-use plastic products may change only if Ottawa amends or repeals existing regulations (SUPPR RIAS).
  • Provincial or municipal bans or fees on plastics would continue if they exist; this bill does not alter those laws.

• Businesses (manufacturers, importers, retailers, food service)

  • CEPA would no longer support federal restrictions that depend on “plastic manufactured items” being on Schedule 1. Existing CEPA regulations tied to that listing would need a new legal basis or amendment to continue (CEPA s.93; SUPPR RIAS).
  • Compliance duties created solely under that listing could lessen if the federal government changes or withdraws related regulations. Other federal, provincial, or municipal rules would still apply. Data on timing is unavailable.

• Local governments

  • No direct change to municipal waste or bylaw powers. Any change in federal rules could shift more responsibility for plastics management to provinces and municipalities. Data unavailable.

• Federal agencies

  • Environment and Climate Change Canada would update CEPA’s Schedule 1 and assess any regulations that rely on the deleted item (Bill, clause 1; CEPA s.93).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No fiscal note published. The bill has no appropriations, taxes, or fees (Bill, clause 1).
• Administrative work would include updating Schedule 1 and reviewing any dependent regulations. Quantified costs: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• The Schedule 1 listing for “plastic manufactured items” is overly broad and does not meet CEPA’s standard for toxicity; a Federal Court set aside the listing as unreasonable. Removing it aligns the law with that ruling and reduces legal risk (2023 FC 1511).
• Deleting the item prevents federal overreach and restores regulatory certainty for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers who faced bans based on a broad category rather than specific harmful substances (2023 FC 1511; CEPA s.93).
• Businesses would avoid compliance costs linked to category-wide bans, and supply chains would face fewer disruptions. Specific savings are not quantified in the bill. Data unavailable.
• Governments can target problematic plastics through narrower, evidence-based tools or recycling and extended producer responsibility programs under provincial authority, without using CEPA’s toxic-substance powers for broad product classes (CEPA scheme; Data unavailable).

Opponents' View#

• Removing the item would undercut federal single-use plastics rules that rely on CEPA’s toxic-substance powers, weakening national efforts to reduce plastic waste and litter (CEPA s.93; SUPPR RIAS).
• Canada generates about 3.3 million tonnes of plastic waste per year; about 9% is recycled, and an estimated 29,000 tonnes leak into the environment. Critics say limiting federal tools could slow progress on these problems (ECCC 2019 study).
• A repeal may create a patchwork of provincial and municipal rules, raising compliance complexity and leaving gaps where no subnational rules exist. Evidence on net effect is uncertain. Data unavailable.
• Narrowing CEPA’s scope to exclude a broad class may make it harder to act on emerging risks like microplastics shed from many products. While some specific plastics remain listed (for example, microbeads), opponents say source reduction is harder without this category (CEPA Schedule 1; Data unavailable).