Elizabeth’s Brief to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development re: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act

On Friday, December 9th, 2016 in Committees, Publications
Share

Brief to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
From Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament, Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader, Green Party of Canada 

December 9, 2016

Re: Canadian Environmental Protection Act

Introduction:

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) was initially developed in the late 1980s and received Royal Assent in 1988.  It combined a number of related acts – Ocean Dumping, Commercial Chemicals legislation, Controls on Phosphorus and Water pollution.

It promised “cradle to grave” comprehensive regulation of toxic substances.  I worked in the Minister’s Office in the development of the legislation at that time. A significant amendment brought forward by Opposition parties in committee created the Priority Substances List to fast track regulation of the backlog of toxic substances.

CEPA received a significant overhaul in 1999, expanding its preventative powers and building on the growing adherence to sustainable development.

In your review, transformational change is still possible.

This brief focusses on areas that I have not found raised in other testimony to the committee.  To avoid repeating points made strongly and clearly by others, I wish to endorse the recommendations of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and its excellent brief, as well as supplemental letters aimed at correcting distressing and unworthy testimony from Environment Canada officials. I also commend to you the brief from former Acting Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environment Canada, James Riordan. The focus on the missed opportunities for preventative action in Part 4 of the Act is very strategic.  Part 4 of CEPA gives the federal government essential tools for action on climate, but is under-utilized and rarely mentioned.

The recommendations from Dr. David Boyd are also important in extending CEPA to an environmental bill of rights.  Lastly, EcoJustice provides important points on timelines and transparency.

The Scope of “Toxic”

It was a disappointment to me at the time when I joined the Minister’s office in 1986 that the scope of the Act, still under development, had already been significantly limited.  Section 93 (4) of the current version of CEPA sets out the limitation that where substances are already regulated under other federal acts, they will not be considered under CEPA.  This was largely a function of the existing scope of Environment Canada’s reach in regulating commercial chemicals.  The major threat of toxic contamination from pesticides, used as intended, was outside Environment Canada’s reach.  So too was control and regulation of radionuclides.  However, given the intended purpose of the Act, leaving out pesticides and radionuclides is an unacceptable retreat.

I urge the committee to consider recommending that the time has come, thirty years after CEPA’s original framing, for a transformational change. Where use of pesticides or contamination of the environment by radionuclides or pesticides pose a threat to health and the environment, CEPA should provide tools to protect health and the environment.  The control by Health Canada over pesticides under the Pest Control Products Act and that of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission over radionuclides should not extend to environmental contamination. CEPA should be extended to cover pesticides and radionuclides.

Appeals:

The approach to appeals of decisions to restrict or ban chemicals and other substances listed as “toxic” should be re-examined based on experience with the US legislation, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rotenticide Act.

Under CEPA, the appeals process is found in sections 333-341.  There is no reference as to which party bears the onus of proof.  The current act establishes a review panel with the powers set out in the Inquiries Act.  The inquiries Act is also silent as to onus of proof.

The approach under FIFRA is preferable in the case of appeals. In US law, when a substance is banned, in any appeal a reverse onus is applied. It is called the Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR).  As the name suggests, the EPA appeals place the burden on the company seeking to overturn a ministerial decision.  The presumption is rebuttable, but the burden is clearly on the appellant, not the Minister.  The bureaucracy in Canada has always resisted banning any dangerous substance.  Those of us in the practice of environmental law, as I once was, often wondered is toxic chemicals had constitutional rights in Canada – innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Note the historical record: Canada, virtually alone in the industrial world never took regulatory action against 2,4,5-Tricholophenoxyacetic acid (2,,4,5-T), more notoriously known as half of the Agent Orange mixture, contaminated with the most toxic of all man-made chemicals, 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenxo-para-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD).   The US had banned it in. Sweden banned it.  Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan took independent action to ban it.  Not the federal government of Canada.  It sent its public servants to testify to its safety when a group of Nova Scotia residents (myself included) went to court in 1982 to stop a wide-spread spray programme.

By the time the bureaucracy is prepared to ban a substance, the threshold for proof has been met at a very high bar.  Despite the stated commitment to adhere to the precautionary principle, Canada still has a lousy record.  Note the current status of the asbestos debate in Canada.   Note the evidence from CELA and the “apples to apples” comparisons of Ontario to New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana. We need to toughen up our approach to toxic emissions.

A reverse onus for any and all appeals within CEPA is overdue.

Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts with the committee.  I am, of course, available to present oral evidence and answer any questions to put my perspective on the record of your hearings.

Submitted electronically,

Respectfully,

 

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament
Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada

Print this page

  • Meg Sears

    Thank you very much Elizabeth. Canada is the last to many bans – not just 2,4,5-T. Just this fall, with triclosan, plastic microbeads, and the flame retardant deca-PBDE, Canada is poised for inaction after the fact, and quite possibly after others’ products are dumped in the remaining open market. Think of the bargains!

    Prevent Cancer Now recently made a submission that includes several more examples of being “last past the post” and recommendations for moving to a paradigm implementing least-toxic best practices with informed substitution as a means to operationalize the Precautionary Principle. I commend it to everyone’s attention, and PCN would love feedback! http://www.preventcancernow.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CEPA-PCN-MCM-NNEWH-2016Dec1.pdf

  • http://www.forensic-pro.com/ Greg Marsh

    Very well put – she could be the next Nader!

How you can help

Follow Me

facebook-icon Facebook Twitter YouTube Digg

eNewsletter


Learn how to support Elizabeth May with her work in Parliament ALT

Island Tides

Island Tides: Another Liberal promise about to be broken on Canada’s navigable waters?
April 27th, 2017

Island Tides: Report from the world’s largest ever gathering of Greens!
April 13th, 2017

Island Tides: What’s in the 2017 budget?
April 7th, 2017

Island Tides: Fake news, propaganda and motion 103
March 2nd, 2017

Dissecting the Prime Minister’s excuses for ditching his promise of fair voting
February 16th, 2017

Latest Blogs

Update on Electoral Reform
December 1st, 2016

COP21 Final Blog – Day 13
December 13th, 2015

COP21 Day 12
December 12th, 2015

COP21 Day 10
December 10th, 2015

COP21 Day 8 – Negotiations move behind closed doors
December 8th, 2015

Green Party Logo

Constituency Office

1-9711 Fourth St
Sidney, BC  V8L 2Y8

Phone: 250-657-2000
800-667-9188
Fax: 250-657-2004

E-mail: elizabeth.may.c1a@parl.gc.ca

Parliament Hill Office

518 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Phone: 613-996-1119
Fax: 613-996-0850

E-mail: elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca

Jobs & Volunteering

Click here for the latest opportunities