Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Inka Milewski and I'm the science adviser for the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, one of the three oldest environmental groups in Canada. We are a membership-based organization.
With respect to the topic today, vulnerable ecosystems and vulnerable populations, the Conservation Council believes there are two blind spots in CEPA. One is the lack of regulations for nutrient discharges to coastal waters, and the other is the lack of nationally binding standards on contaminants in soil, sediment, and water for populations living in the footprint of industrial activity.
I'm going to address each of these separately. In the first instance, that of coastal ecosystems and the need for regulations of nutrient releases, the Conservation Council has been preparing briefs on this matter for standing committees on the environment for almost 10 years, so once again I'm going to bring it up in the hope that we might get some action.
Since 1990, world experts on marine pollution have declared nutrients, specifically nitrogen compounds, the most damaging class of pollutants to the marine environment. There is no scientific dispute about the harmful effects of excessive nutrient loading on coastal waters. Unchecked release of nutrients from municipal sewage plants, pulp and paper mills, fish plants, marine aquaculture operations and intensive livestock operations can trigger a series of ecological responses that ultimately result in oxygen-starved dead zones, causing massive fish kills and the transformation of complex and diverse coastal habitats into barren seascapes dominated by a few species. In 2001 a report on the state of the world's oceans by UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme, identified 50 dead zones worldwide. In 2004 the number went up to 150 and in 2006 that number, as just reported last week, is up to 200; there are 200 dead zones in coastal waters around the world.
Our marine waters are not immune from this phenomenon. In P.E.I. episodes of oxygen starvation and subsequent fish kills due to nutrient loading from agricultural runoff are reported annually at 18 to 20 sites around the province. In New Brunswick a study in 2002 by researchers from Dalhousie University and the Conservation Council of New Brunswick found that of ten estuaries we studied in northern and eastern New Brunswick, seven exhibited moderate to severe symptoms of excessive nutrient loading. Many coastal areas in the Quoddy region on the Bay of Fundy also show symptoms of nutrient loading, especially in the vicinity of point sources such as aquaculture operations.
Currently CEPA is silent on the problem of nutrient releases to the marine environment. Based on our analysis—which we sent in 2004 and 2006, and which you should also have in May—CEPA is the appropriate vehicle to regulate nutrients. Amendments can be made to the nutrient section—part 7, division 1, sections 116 to 199—to accommodate nitrogen compounds such as ammonia, nitrates and nitrites. Ammonia is currently on CEPA's priority substance list, and its release from various point sources represents a significant portion of the nitrogen or nutrients loaded into coastal ecosystems.
The amendment to part 7 would extend the current powers of the Governor in Council to include nutrients other than phosphates. Phosphates are nutrients that are limiting in freshwater systems, but in marine systems it is the nitrogen compounds. Limits could be placed on the concentration of nitrogen and effluent in emissions, or the minister could establish total maximum daily load requirements for a water body, as is done in the United States, and the provinces could be directed to allocate them by individual user.
The Government of Canada must act quickly to control nutrient releases to coastal waters, where 75% of all commercial species live. The report released last week in the journal Science predicting the total collapse of the commercial food fishery by the year 2048 if nothing is done to control overfishing, habitat destruction and pollution—specifically nutrient loading—should be all the evidence the government needs to begin controlling nutrient releases.
On the second issue, that of protecting vulnerable populations within the footprint of industry, in our view vulnerable populations are those people living in the shadow or footprint of industrial operations, such as metal smelters, petrochemical refineries, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators and so on. People living closest to pollution sources are known to be at higher risk of exposure than those living some distance away. Many of the pollutants released, such as metals, persist and accumulate in soil, then bioaccumulate, or bio-magnify, within plants and animals that are subsequently consumed by people living in the area.
While CEPA does set emissions standards on a range of pollutants, it does not address the ongoing accumulation of these pollutants in the environment. That aspect of environmental protection is thought to be covered by other agencies such as Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have developed some guidelines, not regulations, for safe levels of some contaminants in some food products. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the CCME, has established non-enforceable, voluntary guidelines for pollutants in soils, sediments, and water. These are applied at the discretion of the provinces.
Enforceable limits on pollutants in soil, sediment, and water are needed to protect people living in close proximity to industrial activity. They are more vulnerable than people living further away. The example of Belledune, New Brunswick, illustrates this point. I think I sent earlier a copy of this report, Dying for Development - the Legacy of Lead in Belledune, some time in August, and the French translation is now available.
In 2003, after almost 40 years of living in the shadow of a lead smelter, residents had their properties tested for the first time. They found their yards and their gardens had lead, cadmium, zinc, thallium, and arsenic levels that were above agricultural and residential soil quality guidelines set by CCME. In 2005, after the province released the result of the health study that was done in Belledune, residents learned that they had the highest disease, cancer, and mortality rates of any area in the province. They also found out that some of the berries, garden produce, and seafood they had been consuming for years had high levels of lead and cadmium.
Instead of ordering a community-wide cleanup of the contaminated properties, the province ordered a risk assessment, which really amounted to a risk assessment on a risk assessment. Despite the fact that the CCME guidelines have been established on a health risk basis, the province asked the consultants to do another risk assessment. The study concluded that the soil and garden produce were not significant pathways of exposure, although the seafood was. At the same time, in a separate study, children living in two neighbourhoods closest to the smelter were found to have blood lead levels two and a half times higher than children living further away. Incidentally, the soil where those children lived had two to four times higher levels of lead than the soil of children living further away.
As for the high metal levels in some of the garden produce, the province said that Health Canada, and I'm quoting, does not have “maximum residue guidelines for lead in food products”. Some berries and produce tested in the Belledune area had lead levels up to four times higher than Health Canada's maximum residue guideline for whole canned tomatoes, but the province said, you can't use this value to make any comparisons or say anything about the lead levels in those berries.
As the example of Belledune demonstrates, the emission and discharge limits placed on pollutants from industrial sources under CEPA are not sufficient to prevent pollutants from accumulating in the environment and having an impact on vulnerable populations. People living close to a pollution source need more protection than simple end-of-pipe or end-of-stack emission limits and voluntary CCME soil quality guidelines. The Government of Canada needs to step in and set nationally binding standards under CEPA for contaminants that accumulate and persist in soil, sediment, and water as a result of industrial activity.
Thank you.