Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 160, Number 20: GOVERNMENT NOTICES

May 16, 2026

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Draft Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines for rare earth elements

Whereas the Minister of the Environment issues the environmental quality guidelines for the purpose of carrying out the Minister’s mandate related to preserving the quality of the environment;

Whereas the guidelines relate to the environment pursuant to paragraph 54(2)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;

And whereas the Minister of the Environment has offered to consult provincial and territorial governments and the members of the National Advisory Committee who are representatives of Indigenous governments in accordance with subsection 54(3) of the Act;

Notice is hereby given that the draft Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines for rare earth elements are available on the Canada.ca (Chemical substances) website.

Public comment period — May 16, 2026, to July 15, 2026

Any person may, within 60 days after publication of this notice, file with the Minister of the Environment written comments on the scientific considerations on the basis of which the guidelines are made. More information regarding the scientific considerations may be obtained from the Canada.ca (Chemical substances) website. The draft Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines may also be consulted.

How to participate: All comments must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and be sent to the Substances Management Information Line, Department of the Environment, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3, by one of the following methods:

In accordance with section 313 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, any person who provides information in response to this notice may submit with the information a request that it be treated as confidential. The request must provide reasons as provided for under subsection 313(2) of the Act.

Jacqueline Gonçalves
Director General
Science Reporting and Assessment Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Publication of summary of the assessment of 10 substances in the Ketones Group specified on the Domestic Substances List and of Ministerial Statements (section 77 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)

Whereas a summary of the assessment conducted on 10 substances identified in the annex below pursuant to paragraphs 68(b) and (c) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (the Act) is annexed hereby;

And whereas it is concluded that methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) meet one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,

Notice therefore is hereby given that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health (the ministers) propose, under paragraph 77(6)(b) of the Act, to recommend to Her Excellency the Governor in Council that these substances be added to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act.

Notice is given that the ministers propose, for the purposes of subparagraph 77(6)(c)(i) of the Act, to regulate MEK and MIBK under the Act to restrict their uses in consumer products.

Notice is furthermore given that the ministers have released a risk management approach document for MEK and MIBK to continue discussions with stakeholders on the manner in which the ministers intend to develop a proposed regulation or instrument respecting preventive or control actions in relation to the substances.

And whereas it is concluded that 2,4-PD does not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,

Notice is also hereby given that the ministers have reason to suspect that 2,4-PD is capable of becoming toxic and that the ministers propose, for the purposes of paragraph 77(6)(b) of the Act, that this substance be added to the List of substances capable of becoming toxic described in section 75.1 of the Act.

And whereas it is concluded that the remaining seven substances do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,

Notice therefore is hereby given, for the purposes of paragraph 77(6)(b) of the Act, that the ministers propose to take no further action on these substances at this time.

Public comment period on the risk management approach — May 16, 2026, to July 15, 2026

Any person may, within 60 days after publication of this notice, file with the Minister of the Environment written comments on the risk management approach document. More information regarding the scientific considerations may be obtained from the Canada.ca (Chemical substances) website. The assessment and the risk management approach document may also be consulted.

How to participate: All comments must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and be sent to the Substances Management Information Line, Department of the Environment, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3, by one of the following methods:

In accordance with section 313 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, any person who provides information in response to this notice may submit with the information a request that it be treated as confidential. The request must provide reasons as provided for under subsection 313(2) of the Act.

Julie Dabrusin
Minister of the Environment

Marjorie Michel
Minister of Health

ANNEX

Summary of the assessment of the Ketones Group

Pursuant to section 68 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have conducted an assessment of 10 substances referred to collectively under the Chemicals Management Plan as the Ketones Group. The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers (CAS RNs),footnote 1 the Domestic Substances List (DSL) names, and the common names and abbreviations of these substances are listed in the table below.

Substances in the Ketones Group
CAS RN Subgroup DSL name Common name (abbreviation)
78-93-3 1 2-Butanone Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
107-87-9 1 2-Pentanone Methyl propyl ketone (MPK)
108-10-1 2 2-Pentanone, 4-methyl- Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)
110-12-3 2 2-Hexanone, 5-methyl Methyl isoamyl ketone (MIAK)
123-42-2 2 2-Pentanone, 4-hydroxy-4-methyl- Diacetone alcohol (DAA)
431-03-8 3 2,3-Butanedione Diacetyl
513-86-0 3 2-Butanone, 3-hydroxy Acetoin
600-14-6 3 2,3-Pentanedione 2,3-Pentanedione (2,3-PD)
123-54-6 Individual 2,4-Pentanedione 2,4-Pentanedione (2,4-PD)
141-79-7 Individual 3-Penten-2-one, 4-methyl- Mesityl oxide (MO)

All 10 substances in the Ketones Group are commercially produced and are naturally present in the environment in various plants and/or food items or as substances produced by microbes and other organisms. Several of the ketones are also produced endogenously in humans, including MEK, diacetyl and acetoin. According to information reported in response to surveys conducted under section 71 of CEPA, only DAA (23 000 kg) and 2,3-PD (1 200 kg) were reported to be manufactured in Canada in 2011. Reported imports in Canada for the substances in the Ketones Group ranged between 100 kg (for acetoin) and 6 000 000 kg (for MEK) in 2011. In the same year, no Canadian manufacturing or importing activities above the reporting threshold of 100 kg were reported for MO.

In general, ketones are primarily used as solvents in various consumer products, such as paints, coatings and adhesives, and in numerous industrial applications, such as chemical intermediates and solvents, among others. They may also be used as food flavouring agents, in cosmetics, in natural health products, and as formulants in pest control products.

The ecological risks of the substances in the Ketones Group were characterized using the ecological risk classification of organic substances (ERC), which is a risk-based approach that employs multiple metrics for both hazard and exposure, with weighted consideration of multiple lines of evidence for determining risk classification. Hazard profiles are established based principally on metrics regarding mode of toxic action, chemical reactivity, food web–derived internal toxicity thresholds, bioavailability, and chemical and biological activity. Metrics considered in the exposure profiles include potential emission rate, overall persistence, and long-range transport potential. A risk matrix is used to assign a low, moderate or high level of potential concern for substances on the basis of their hazard and exposure profiles. Based on the outcome of the ERC analysis, the substances in the Ketones Group are considered unlikely to be causing ecological harm.

Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this assessment, there is a low risk of harm to the environment from MEK, MPK, MIBK, MIAK, DAA, diacetyl, 2,3-PD, acetoin, 2,4-PD, and MO. It is concluded that MEK, MPK, MIBK, MIAK, DAA, diacetyl, 2,3-PD, acetoin, 2,4-PD, and MO do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(a) or (b) of CEPA, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.

Several of these ketones have been previously reviewed internationally; these reviews and assessments were used to inform the health effects characterization in this assessment.

For the human health risk assessment, eight of the substances in the Ketones Group have been addressed under three subgroups, with the remaining two substances having been addressed individually. For subgroup 1 (MEK and MPK), the critical health effects include developmental effects for MEK and decreased body weight gain for both MEK and MPK. The general population in Canada is exposed to MEK and MPK from air and food (from their natural occurrence and possible use as food flavouring agents), and from products available to consumers, including cosmetics, paints, and do-it-yourself (DIY) products. MEK was also reported to be released to air as a result of industrial activities. A comparison of the levels of MEK and MPK found in environmental media and in food (from their possible use as food flavouring agents) to which people in Canada may be exposed against the levels associated with adverse effects in laboratory studies results in margins that are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the available exposure and health effects data used to characterize risk. However, the margins between critical health effect levels and exposure levels to MEK in some products available to consumers — namely, paint or coating removers or strippers (for example lacquer removers), adhesive removers, degreasers, paint or coating thinners, liquid paints, and various spray products, including spray paints —are considered inadequate to account for uncertainties in the exposure and health effects data used to characterize risk. Given the low acute toxicity of MPK and the absence of developmental effects via inhalation, there are no concerns related to the presence of MPK in products available to consumers.

For subgroup 2 (MIBK, MIAK, and DAA), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers MIBK to be in group 2B (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”), with “sufficient evidence” of carcinogenicity in laboratory animals. For non-cancer effects, effects on the liver (MIBK and MIAK) and kidney (MIBK and DAA) as well as developmental effects (MIBK and DAA) were observed in laboratory studies. In Canada, the general population may be exposed to MIBK, MIAK, and DAA from environmental media and food (from their natural occurrence and, for MIBK, from its potential use as a food flavouring agent), and from the use of products available to consumers, including rubbing alcohol, cosmetics, markers, paints, and DIY products. MIBK was also reported to be released to air as a result of industrial activities. A comparison of estimated levels of exposure to MIBK, MIAK, and DAA from environmental media and of exposure to MIBK from food (from its potential use as a food flavouring agent) against critical effect levels results in margins that are considered to be adequate to address uncertainties in the available exposure and health effects data used to characterize risk. Exposure to MIBK, MIAK, and DAA from their natural occurrence in food was not identified as a concern for human health; however, for MIBK, the resulting margins associated with the use of wood lacquers, liquid paints, and various spray products, including spray paints, are considered to be inadequate to address uncertainties in the available exposure and health effects data used to characterize risk.

For subgroup 3 (diacetyl, 2,3-PD, and acetoin), diacetyl was shown to be carcinogenic in laboratory studies. For diacetyl and 2,3-PD, non-cancer effects have also been observed, such as on the respiratory tract. For acetoin, only general systemic toxicity at high doses has been observed. The general population of Canada is primarily exposed to diacetyl, 2,3-PD, and acetoin through food (due to their natural occurrence and possible use as food flavouring agents) and to diacetyl and 2,3-PD through the use of a limited number of products available to consumers, including cosmetics and air fresheners, respectively. A comparison of estimated levels of exposure to diacetyl, 2,3-PD, and acetoin against critical effect levels results in margins that are considered to be adequate to address uncertainties in the available exposure and health effects data used to characterize risk.

The available information on the health effects of 2,4-PD indicates general systemic toxicity and developmental effects. 2,4-PD has shown some potential to be genotoxic but is not expected to be carcinogenic. The general population of Canada may be exposed to 2,4-PD from environmental media (air and water) and through its natural occurrence in food. A comparison of estimated levels of exposure to 2,4-PD and critical effect levels results in margins that are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the available exposure and health effects data used to characterize risk. In the draft assessment, 2,4-PD was identified as a concern for human health on the basis of its presence in a limited number of products available to consumers. Further investigation confirmed that 2,4-PD is not currently present in products available to consumers; therefore, 2,4-PD is no longer considered to be a concern for human health at current levels of exposure. While exposure of the general population to 2,4-PD is not of concern at current levels, there is the potential for levels of exposure to increase in the future. Given the potential health effects of concern associated with this substance, there may be a concern for human health if exposure levels were to increase.

People in Canada may be exposed to MO from its presence in air and food (due to its natural occurrence and potential use as a food flavouring agent). MO is not expected to be carcinogenic or genotoxic. General systemic toxicity has been associated with exposure to MO in laboratory studies. A comparison of estimated levels of exposure to MO in environmental media and food (from its potential use as a food flavouring agent) against critical effect levels results in margins that are considered to be adequate to address uncertainties in the available exposure and health effects data used to characterize risk.

The human health assessment took into consideration those groups of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be more vulnerable to experiencing adverse health effects. For instance, age-specific exposure, including for infants and children, was estimated, and developmental and reproductive toxicity studies were examined to determine potential adverse health effects. In addition, exposure of people living near industrial releases was also considered.

Considering all of the information presented in this assessment, it is concluded that MEK and MIBK meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA as they are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health. However, it is concluded that MPK, MIAK, DAA, diacetyl, 2,3-PD, acetoin, 2,4-PD, and MO do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Overall conclusion

It is therefore concluded that MEK and MIBK meet one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA and that MPK, MIAK, DAA, diacetyl, 2,3-PD, acetoin, 2,4-PD, and MO do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA.

Consideration for follow-up

While exposure of the environment or general population to 2,4-PD is not of concern at current levels, this substance is associated with effects of concern. Therefore, there may be concern if exposure levels were to increase. Follow-up activities will be considered to track its commercial status or identify new uses or means of exposure.

The Government of Canada will use the data gathered through these follow-up activities to prioritize further information gathering or risk assessment of this substance, if required.

The assessment and the risk management approach document for these substances are available on the Canada.ca (Latest news about the Chemicals Management Plan) website.

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE

Appointment opportunities

The Government of Canada is committed to appointing highly qualified individuals to Governor in Council positions through competency-based assessments. Governor in Council appointments are guided by principles of competency, transparency and respect for diversity. These principles ensure appointees are held to the high standards of professionalism, responsibility, and ethical behaviour. High quality and timely appointments ensure that the Government carries out its mandate and achieves its objectives in an efficient manner.

The Government of Canada is currently seeking applications from Canadians across the country who are interested in the following positions.

Current opportunities

The following opportunities for appointments to Governor in Council positions are currently open for applications. Every opportunity is open for a minimum of two weeks from the date of posting on the Governor in Council appointments website.

Governor in Council appointment opportunities
Position Organization Closing date
Chair of the Board Canada Revenue Agency May 25, 2026
Chief Executive Officer Canadian Air Transport Security Authority May 19, 2026
Director Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 May 28, 2026
President Canadian Space Agency May 21, 2026
Chief Administrator Courts Administration Service May 25, 2026
Chairperson Farm Credit Canada May 28, 2026
Director Farm Credit Canada May 28, 2026
Chairperson The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited May 21, 2026
Member National Farm Products Council May 20, 2026
Member National Research Council of Canada May 18, 2026
Deputy Administrator of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund Ship and Rail Compensation Canada May 21, 2026
Chairperson Veterans Review and Appeal Board June 1, 2026

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CANNABIS ACT

Notice of Intent — Consultation on potential amendments to the Industrial Hemp Regulations

Purpose of notice

This Notice of Intent is to inform Canadians and interested parties that Health Canada is seeking feedback on potential amendments to the Industrial Hemp Regulations (IHR). These changes would support the Government of Canada’s commitment to reduce red tape while continuing to protect public health and public safety.

Health Canada’s goal is to reform the control framework for industrial hemp to better reflect the risks it presents to public health and public safety. Amendments to the IHR would focus on eliminating or reducing regulatory requirements and decreasing the administrative burden while maintaining key control measures. The expected outcome is a risk-based regulation that rightsizes requirements for industrial hemp and that reduces the overall burden and cost for regulated parties and the Government of Canada.

Background

The Cannabis Act and its regulations provide a legal framework to control the cultivation, processing, distribution, sale, import, export and possession of cannabis in Canada in a manner that protects public health and public safety. Industrial hemp is a variety of cannabis selectively bred to produce very low concentrations of the psychoactive compound delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

Under the Cannabis Act, “cannabis” means a cannabis plant and anything listed in Schedule 1 but does not include anything listed in Schedule 2. Schedule 1 includes any processed or unprocessed part of a cannabis plant, including its leaves, flowers and phytocannabinoids. It also includes any substance that contains cannabis and molecules identical to any phytocannabinoids even if produced synthetically. Schedule 2 includes plant parts with a low THC concentration, such as non-viable seeds and mature stalks (without any leaf, flower, seed or branch) of a cannabis plant, and their derivatives. Items listed in Schedule 2 are not subject to controls under the Cannabis Act and its regulations because they do not pose the same risks to public health and public safety as items listed in Schedule 1.

Under the Cannabis Act, the IHR are the regulatory framework for controlling and authorizing certain activities with industrial hemp, which is defined in the IHR as a cannabis plant — or any part of that plant — in which the concentration of THC is 0.3% (weight by weight) or less in the flowering heads and leaves.

Under the IHR, a person must have a licence to conduct the following activities:

The IHR require licence holders to obtain a separate permit for the import or export of industrial hemp seed or grain, and to comply with other requirements (e.g. variety restrictions, documentation on shipment). The IHR also require the holder of a licence that authorizes cultivation for seed to test the flowering heads and leaves for the purpose of determining the concentration of THC (since the plant would no longer meet the definition of industrial hemp if the THC concentration is above 0.3%, weight by weight).

In addition to administering licences and permits under the IHR, Health Canada is responsible for managing industrial hemp varieties on the List of Approved Cultivars (LOAC). Those who hold a licence under the IHR to cultivate industrial hemp must only grow seed of varieties approved for commercial cultivation (i.e. those listed on the LOAC). An exception is made for plant breeders, who are permitted to cultivate or propagate industrial hemp varieties not on the LOAC but that are set out in their licence.

Certain activities related to industrial hemp must meet additional requirements under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s frameworks where the regulatory focus is on seed quality, plant health and the movement of plant material. As an example, industrial hemp seed must be treated in a specific way in order to maintain the pedigreed status of the seed. In addition, each imported shipment of industrial hemp seed requires a phytosanitary certificate — similar to what is required for other seed and plant commodities — to prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests and diseases.

The Cannabis Regulations (CR) also apply to industrial hemp, specifically seed or crop varieties that test above 0.3% THC (weight by weight), and to certain activities involving industrial hemp. For example, a cannabis processing licence is required under the CR if a stakeholder intends to isolate or concentrate phytocannabinoids, including the extraction of cannabidiol (CBD), from flowering heads or any other part of industrial hemp.

Proposal

Based on the experience gained since the implementation of the Cannabis Act and its regulations, industry feedback, and the Government of Canada’s commitment to reduce red tape on individuals, businesses and organizations, Health Canada recognizes that there may be an opportunity to amend the IHR so that they are better calibrated to risk.

Industry has expressed concern that regulatory requirements for industrial hemp are not proportionate to its risks to public health and public safety. Most notably, industry stakeholders have advocated for a new approach to the regulation of industrial hemp that sees it treated as an agricultural commodity. They have noted that while industrial hemp and cannabis come from the same plant family, the outputs and products that result from the cultivation and processing of industrial hemp are entirely different and carry very different risks. Further, CBD, a predominant cannabinoid other than THC found in industrial hemp, is not intoxicating.

In response to industry concerns, Health Canada is conducting a review to explore opportunities to streamline the IHR, similar to efforts to streamline the regulatory framework for cannabis in 2025. Health Canada acknowledges that industrial hemp has a lower potential for public health harms and misuse and fewer public safety concerns in comparison to cannabis due to its very low levels of THC, the primary cannabinoid responsible for intoxication.

The review will include evaluating potential changes to the IHR that could eliminate or reduce regulatory requirements (e.g. the requirement to obtain a licence or permit to conduct certain activities with industrial hemp) or decrease the administrative burden (e.g. completing forms, reporting of information) without compromising public health or public safety. A key consideration is maintaining control measures for certain activities involving industrial hemp (e.g. a system that manages industrial hemp varieties for commercial cultivation) to prevent the illegal cultivation of cannabis (disguised as industrial hemp) and its potential diversion to an illicit market. Additionally, aligning with international obligations to report cannabis and industrial hemp-related activities is an important consideration for Health Canada.

In addition to this Notice of Intent, Health Canada will be collecting information through a separate voluntary cost-benefit analysis questionnaire sent to industrial hemp licence holders only. The questionnaire will collect information to understand the costs and benefits of proposed changes to the IHR on industrial hemp licence holders. The cost-benefit analysis would be included in a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) and published in the Canada Gazette if regulatory changes are proposed. Health Canada encourages industrial hemp licence holders to provide responses to the questions in both this Notice of Intent and the cost-benefit analysis questionnaire.

Question to guide input from interested parties

Health Canada is interested in receiving feedback on potential changes to the regulation of industrial hemp. Below are key questions for which Health Canada is particularly interested in receiving input. However, all input is welcome and should not be limited to responses to these questions. Please provide a rationale and/or evidence wherever possible, which could include the anticipated impact on the industrial hemp industry, public health and public safety.

Health Canada would like to hear your feedback on the following questions.

  1. What are the regulatory requirements under the IHR that impose an unnecessary burden related to
    • cultivation
    • importing and exporting
    • testing for THC concentration
    • selling flowering heads, leaves and branches
    • reporting certain information
  2. What are the most important control measures to ensure industrial hemp is distinguishable from cannabis, and to prevent the illegal cultivation and diversion of cannabis?
  3. What changes would you suggest to streamline the IHR?
    • What requirements would you eliminate or reduce, and why?
    • How would you decrease the administrative burden for industrial hemp licence holders?
  4. Would you modify the current definition of industrial hemp and, if so, how and why?
  5. What changes would you suggest to streamline the management of the LOAC?
  6. Are there public health or public safety harms related to reducing the regulatory burden?
Next steps

Health Canada will review and consider the input received following publication of this Notice of Intent to inform next steps. Any future regulatory proposal developed as a result of this consultation would be prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for public consultation.

Public comments

The publication of this Notice of Intent initiates a 45-day public comment period. Input received will ensure that regulatory amendments are informed by and responsive to the industrial hemp industry, other interested parties, and the public. Health Canada welcomes input for 45 calendar days until June 30, 2026.

Contact information

Please submit your input by email to cannabis.consultation@canada.ca with the following title in the subject line: “Notice of Intent — Consultation on potential amendments to the Industrial Hemp Regulations”.

John Clare 
Director General
Strategic Policy, Cannabis
Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch