Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee for having me, once again, testify.
The Canadian public's interest in environmental stewardship pulls relatively high on voter priority lists, but it's rarely reflected by way of broad participation and CEPA consultation. Committed environmental groups such as Great Lakes United will continue to consult under various provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but I think we'll nonetheless be left wondering what to do in terms of engaging the public at large.
Two backgrounders were prepared by Great Lakes United under the auspices of the CEPA Review Advisory Committee, and I've tabled those with the clerk for your review.
For the purposes of analysis, GLU's following comments are loosely grouped as access and outreach, the mechanics of consultation, and the absence of departmental champions.
On public access and outreach, comprehensive state of the environment reporting, I think, would be very beneficial for attracting public interest in CEPA. To date, as it stands now, it's the National Pollutant Release Inventory, more commonly known as the NPRI, that's the primary tool through which the public engages or gets information on pollution data for Canada.
Progress on the NPRI has largely stalled since 2002, and as of August 2006, I believe, PCBs, thallium, beryllium, barium, and radionuclides were still not included in the inventory, despite years of having been tabled for discussion. Likewise, recommendations to reduce reporting thresholds have gone unheeded, revisions to mining exemptions have not been addressed, and the credibility of NPRI data is undermined by a lack of auditing polluter reports.
Other CEPA databases should be tightened to report on actual pollution levels rather than on volume of pollution permitted. I'm referring here to ocean dumping requirements. The use of other statutes in pollution reporting mechanisms--for example, greenhouse gases--that fall outside of CEPA further undermine efforts to draw public attention to CEPA as a one-stop shop for pollution information.
State of the environment reporting has been poor and insufficient for promoting the act and government efforts on pollution control generally. State of the environment reporting needs to be enhanced and should include reporting on specific CEPA provisions, including efforts to meet international agreements impacted by the act. I'm referring here to international emissions into air, land, and water.
With no public profile for the act, a lack of ministerial reporting, and precious few cuts to pollution to report, the value of the CEPA registry is challenged not by the website architecture, but rather by what I would describe as ministerial disinterest in reporting on progress and insufficient interest in the promotion of public participation. For those reasons, a concerted promotional campaign for highlighting CEPA as Canada's cornerstone pollution statute and for the release of the state of the environment report would be beneficial, and I think actually might be needed.
Under the heading of mechanics for consultation, Environment Canada has a well-established history of public consultation and is supported, in part, by the delegate selection processes of the Canadian Environmental Network, whose members nominate NGO representatives on various issues. Environment Canada does a much better job than most federal departments, including, notably, Health Canada, at ensuring stakeholder balance in consultations and at avoiding undue influence in the selection of NGO representatives.
That said, treatment of first nation representatives has been inconsistent under CEPA. At times they fall under the rubric of civil society and effectively displace an environmental representative on that point. My point here is that a first nation delegate typically will focus interest on issues of governance, representation, and treaty rights rather than on broad issues of civic interest and operationalization of the act. It's therefore unfair to dilute representation of non-governmental organizations with representation from Canada's first nations, and it's equally unfair to characterize first nations as stakeholders on par with environmental groups and private industry. Inasmuch as they represent governments or ambitions of self-governance, first nations must be consulted outside of CEPA's delicate stakeholder balance between industry and the NGO sector.
The third point I want to address is the lack of a departmental champion for the environment. Stakeholder balance alone is insufficient to guarantee credible outputs from consultation. Exactly how and the extent to which participants engage largely determine the final recommendations coming out of consultation. Whereas departmental participation is necessary and encouraged, it is not at the moment balanced, inasmuch as no department champions the environment per se. By way of example, at consultations, Natural Resources Canada is routinely able to identify with recommendations that reflect mining and forestry interests, and Health Canada ensures that its pharmaceutical clients are not undermined by proposed action.
Environment Canada seems steadfastly focused on consultation process rather than on promotion of environmental protection. Rarely at consultations does Environment Canada table its recommendations for discussion or provide critiques to consultants' reports. More routinely, as recently reported to GLU from CCME meetings, there is stakeholder review of discussion documents prepared by third-party consulting firms without the benefit of a critique or an indication of what the department plans to do with the report. The public is more frequently consulted on consultants' reports than on any proposed policy direction intended to realize CEPA objectives.
Environment Canada needs to step beyond the current role of coordinating input toward one that also shows leadership in environmental protection in a way that identifies the recommendations the department is tabling. At consultations, stakeholders should be reacting to draft recommendations, not to the recommendations of private consulting firms.
In the view of Great Lakes United, dedication to state of the environment reporting, an enhanced NPRI, improved stakeholder balance, and a special track for consulting with first nations, along with departmental leadership and championing of environmental protection, will all improve the act's capacity to engage the public.
I'm sorry, but the timelines didn't allow for specific clause-by-clause proposals in this text. I'll be submitting those later this month.