Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to present here. I am presenting on behalf of the Canadian Environmental Network's toxics caucus, of which I am co-chair, as well as the organization, STORM Coalition, in southern Ontario.
What I would like to do in this presentation is reinforce some of the key principles and themes that have come from environmental organizations and others during the review period and to highlight areas where the review has not addressed certain topics and they require further attention.
I will start by saying that the preamble of CEPA is laudable. Many features of the act are commendable, but much of the act has yet to be implemented, to test the waters in many ways, or enforced. These kinds of issues, like implementation...if an act is not implemented, what are the barriers for implementation? What problems have arisen? Why hasn't the act been implemented? Where is the enforcement regimen? We've heard examples that this has not been done.
Some of the witnesses have already stressed some of these key principles, but for the groups I represent, I want to reiterate that implementation of the precautionary principle...we've heard that. One of the hindrances may be, in the clause, the cost-effective constraint, so the committee should consider whether that is a barrier.
Pollution prevention is the cornerstone of CEPA 1999; “it's the priority approach to environmental protection”. However, when it comes to implementing pollution prevention, there's a lot wanting in this, and I will cite specific cases in which I've been involved. One is developing pollution prevention planning for a number of sectors or substances, and to date, after seven years, there have only been eight of these plans. We can't review them yet because they're not implemented yet.
Many of these plans--and I will cite one case for base metal smelters in Canada, which are the largest emitters of CEPA toxic metals. I use the word “toxic” because that's what these metals are when released into the environment, as well as being the prime emitters of sulphur dioxide in Canada. They have limits under these pollution prevention plans that are factors to consider. They're not legally enforceable.
This has taken years to develop. This particular sector has been under scrutiny for 20 years, and what we now have is a plan that may be implemented by 2015. Meanwhile, the pollutants can go unguarded, and there are no limits to metals like mercury, cadmium, lead, and so on. So is that prevention? I would say we need to look at strengthening pollution prevention, if it is to be the cornerstone.
The other area is public participation. I wouldn't be involved if it weren't for public participation clauses under CEPA. However, barriers have been noted in information access. But perhaps for the public, one of the most important tools of public participation has been the national pollutant release inventory, and that is crucial for the public to know what pollutants are being released into their environment and by what medium.
Lately, you've noticed a lack of will to make changes in the inventory. There have been significant changes, but there's been a bit of a downturn, and one questions the will to do this and the pressure that's been put on the inventory to lessen the burden of reporting. It's not the burden of reporting; it's the burden of pollutants on the environment that we have to worry about. Also, I've cited other issues with the inventory that should be examined to make it a more reliable, accessible information tool for the public.
I will go on to the next topic, which Dr. Khatter has dealt with as well, and I agree completely with...the assessment of toxic substances is a critical issue for CEPA. It's the time constraints to do these. Some of these assessments have taken years. Some aspects don't have timelines imposed on them, and as a result, exposure continues. No precautionary principle is invoked in any of these assessments, and vulnerable populations bear the brunt of this. The use of safer alternatives or substitutions is not part of the process, and one has to consider the synergistic effects of multiple exposures to these pollutants.
Definitely the burden of proof and shifting the burden of proof to industry are critical, as is doing it in a way that makes sense. Reference has been made to the scientists' report that illustrates examples of this. Also, the act should be effectively banning or restricting and phasing out the most persistent bioaccumulative toxins.
I want to briefly talk about virtual elimination, and I agree completely with Dr. Khatter's views on this. I've been involved in the one substance that will go on the list, HCBD, hexachlorobutadiene. That substance is the first to enter the list, and if it's not a household name with you, I wouldn't panic, because it hasn't been in the Canadian market in years. If any contender is to make the list, it's the one that would create the least fuss. I consider it like a test case. After all these years, one makes the list, and it's one that isn't a household name or that may be as much of a concern as other substances that are out there.
Similarly, it's the use of this level of quantification that I question as a scientist. It is defined in a way that says it's the lowest concentration that can be accurately measured using sensitive, routinely available technology. Well, for substances, it is set magnitudes above what many devices can now detect, so I think that's a contrived concept. You should investigate it, and I agree with looking at the zero discharge concept and what is met in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. I would strongly recommend that the committee look at the virtual elimination clauses.
Another area is accountability and enforcement. We've heard about a number of these tools, like the polluter-pay principle. How effective are they? They're not used. Is it the will? Is it that the resources to enforce are not there? Are they too discretionary? That's another area.
Another point is federal–provincial processes, and I'd like to cite an example of harmonization and where CEPA should have been used, could have been used, and was not. As you are probably aware, the Canada-wide standards under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and the harmonization accord were set out to establish or develop standards—they're not standards because they're not legally enforceable—for a number of substances of concern. Quebec, as you know, is not a signatory to the harmonization accord.
I'll cite the fact that Canada-wide standards are not necessarily health-based. They're neither adopted nor consistently monitored in all jurisdictions. The one case I'll cite is mercury. I've been involved in all of these Canada-wide standards, but mercury is the one, and it would probably be the most pervasive bioaccumulative toxin known. Finally, after many years, a “Canada-wide standard” was developed for coal-fired plants. This has just come out; however, it's completely inadequate if you look at the values and comments about this standard. Also, it has cited, for example, zero mercury releases for Ontario, but we know that's not going to happen because Ontario is going to continue with its coal plants. No standards have been set for mercury for coal plants in Ontario. I'm sure you're aware of their continual battle with whether we should close coal plants in Ontario or keep them going. We don't know what we're doing, but that's another issue.
The concern I have about Canada-wide standards is that it has taken so much time to look at some of these substances, particularly something like mercury, as well as dioxins and furans, although mercury has been the longest going here. In all of that time it has taken, and with the arguments not to bring in regulation under CEPA—which many of us strongly supported—we're left with an inoperable document in the Canada-wide standard. If CEPA had regulated in the first place or had looked at regulation, after all these years I would have expected that for a toxin such as mercury, this would have been the way CEPA should have been utilized. It has not been. I contend that the committee should examine this.
Also, the concern I have is the potential for devolution of powers and controls to provinces. The Canada-wide standard is a concern showing that while each province goes and sets up its own implementation mechanism, we seem to lack a federal picture for a number of these substances. They are under CEPA. They are declared toxic under CEPA and they are federal concerns. This is the role, in my opinion, that CEPA must play.
Another issue is international agreements.