Mr. Speaker, on October 3 I asked the Minister of the Environment a question about the toxic substances policy she announced on September 27. I asked her when the measures on pesticides would be implemented and what the timeframe for the policy was.
The minister replied that she had the intention of introducing implementing legislation in the early spring. Some suggestions might therefore be in place here tonight.
The goals of this toxic policy are as follows. First, to virtually eliminate from the environment substances that are the result of human activity, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. Second, to ensure that all other substances of concern are adequately managed throughout their use so that there is minimum impact on the environment and human health.
Those substances which are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic are to be virtually eliminated from the environment through a management program that ensures "no measurable release" of each substance. However, when it comes to substances which cannot be controlled, measures will be taken to prevent their generation and use. The onus will be on industry to demonstrate that the proposed management program will ensure that there is no measurable release of the substances into the environment.
The first point that I need to make here tonight is that if we are to have a sound toxic policy in Canada we must ensure that it is based on sound concepts. Clearly pollution prevention is at the crux of this policy. Is it adequate to say that pollution prevention is the control of the release of toxic substances rather than the reduction in their generation and use? Will control of release be adequate to protect human health and the environment?
Second, the term reverse onus is used throughout the discussion paper. Reverse onus is actually intended to mean that no production or use of substances is allowed until it is proven that these substances are not toxic. This burden is intended to fall upon industry and not on the government. Therefore I would suggest the proposed reverse onus should be expended so as to apply to proving the safety of the substances first and then to the management plans.
Third, the definition of toxicity. It is based on the Environment Protection Act definition which states that the substance is toxic if it is present in the environment and in a quantity or concentration that may have a harmful effect on the environment or may cause an endangerment to human health.
Why not then adopt a definition of toxicity that does not have thresholds so high that the scope and effectiveness of the policy is thwarted? For example the policy proposed by the government is intended to apply to all substances used and released into the environment. Is this definition broad enough? Should it not include threats posed to human health on sites where these substances are used prior to the release of the substance into the environment?
Fourth, the concern that for a substance to be considered toxic it must meet certain threshold levels in three different criteria; persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity. For some reason the proposed policy contains threshold levels that are often higher, less stringent than those proposed by the Ontario government, the priority substance list of the Environment Protection Act. Should we not ensure that we have stringent threshold levels to ensure the safety of human health and the environment?
To conclude, the success or failure of the proposed toxics policy rests on definitions and criteria. If they are too weak then the rest of the policy will be ineffective.
My question to the minister is will the proposed definitions and levels be re-examined and brought up to levels required to protect all life in the long term?