Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Health

Understanding the Risks from Toxic Substances: Cracks in the Foundation of the Federal House
(Chapter 3 - May 1999 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment
and Sustainable Development)

Managing the Risks of Toxic Substances: Obstacles to Progress
(Chapter 4 - May 1999 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development)

Thank you, Madam Chair and good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. This afternoon, I would like to make some brief introductory remarks, and then I would be pleased to answer your questions. With me here today is John Reed, the Principal responsible for our work on toxic substances.

My remarks today are based on the findings of an audit report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, tabled in Parliament in May 1999. By way of background, that audit, reported in two separate but related chapters, examined the federal government's assessment and management of existing toxic substances. Chapter 3, Understanding the Risks from Toxic Substances: Cracks in the Foundation of the Federal House, focused on the gathering of scientific information and its use by the Government in deciding which substances pose risks to human health and environmental quality. Chapter 4, Managing the Risks of Toxic Substances: Obstacles to Progress, reviewed actions taken by the Government to deal with the risks posed by toxic substances.

This was a major and complex audit that covered a great deal of territory across the federal landscape and involved six federal departments. Our findings included poor interdepartmental co-ordination of research efforts, incomplete environmental monitoring networks, slow progress in meeting stated commitments, a lack of re-evaluation of pesticides against new health and environmental standards, and a growing gap between the demands placed upon departments and the availability of resources to meet those demands. These add up to a serious problem. Overall, the audit concluded that the Government's ability to detect, understand, and prevent the harmful effects of such substances was seriously threatened.

Although the audit looked at many types of toxic substances, including industrial chemicals managed through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, I will focus the balance of my remarks only on the sections that dealt with pesticides. I would like to very briefly highlight four major areas of concern raised in the audit.

The first concerned a disturbing lack of co-operation and sharing of information between the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and the departments that undertake scientific research such as Health Canada, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans. Research and monitoring are essential to understand the presence and impact of pesticides in Canada and to support informed decision-making. But generating good information is a moot point if it is not used effectively. At the time of the audit the PMRA had developed a reputation as a "closed shop" and was perceived as not welcoming input from other federal departments. In addition, the PMRA did not share information in its possession, arguing that existing legislation prevented this.

Second, the audit raised serious concerns about the lack of re-evaluations and special reviews of existing pesticides. Many pesticides used today were approved when standards were much less stringent than they are today. At the time of the audit, of the 500 active ingredients contained in registered pesticides, over 300 were approved before 1981 and over 150 before 1960. And yet, despite long-standing commitments to re-evaluate these pesticides against modern standards, the Government's track record was alarmingly poor. In addition, the audit found the ground rules for conducting re-evaluations and "special reviews" were unclear.

The third key concern addressed in our audit was the absence of a pesticide risk reduction policy and strategic game plan within the PMRA. Risk reduction in this context refers to activities aimed at reducing overall risks to people and the environment, including reductions in use of pesticides and measures to encourage adoption of safer alternatives or lower-risk pesticides. Governments world-wide have specifically enacted such policies and programs. The Canadian government even directed the PMRA upon its formation to develop a risk reduction policy. The audit found it had not done so.

The last area of concern raised was the inadequate tracking of toxic releases and pesticides. The audit noted the lack of a national database on pesticide sales, despite explicit direction and previous commitments to establish one. Measurement is fundamental to good management and without such data, Canada simply doesn't know much about the types and amounts of pesticides released into the environment. This undermines the Government's ability to gauge the effectiveness of risk reduction efforts.

Madam Chair, the 1999 audit made 27 recommendations to departments, including many to the PMRA, to address the deficiencies we found. They agreed to take action. We have attached a list of these recommendations as an appendix to this statement. As part of our normal audit procedures, we are currently conducting a follow-up audit to determine what progress departments have made since then. We will be reporting this work to Parliament in October of this year.

Although we fully recognize that toxic substances and pesticides are a complex issue for the many reasons cited in our chapters, I am not convinced that the problems we identified are rooted in the complexity of the issues. On the contrary, many of the weaknesses we identified have an all-too-familiar human "ring" about them, and in my view, are very solvable, by:

• applying the fundamentals of good management
• taking action towards commitments and policies
• developing clear working relationships, roles and accountabilities
• reconciling competing mandates and "compartmentalized thinking"
• building effective performance measurement.

That said, I think that effective legislation will be key for addressing some of the issues confronting the government and the PMRA. Key areas in this regard include provisions for reporting and information sharing, requirements for conducting re-evaluations and special reviews, and the establishment of a national sales database.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, the main message in the May 1999 Report was that there was a substantial gap between talk and action on the federal government's environmental and sustainable development agenda. I believe this is still the case today and we are paying the price in terms of our health, environment, standard of living, and legacy to our children and grandchildren.

In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to be here today. We will be pleased to answer your questions.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Understanding the Risks From Toxic Substances: Cracks in the Foundation of the Federal House

3.70 Environment Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Fisheries and Oceans should each conduct an analysis of gaps between projected demands for scientific research on toxic substances (including the need for new scientific methods, skills and expertise) and existing departmental capacity, and subsequently use this information to assess federal gaps overall.

3.86 Environment Canada, Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Fisheries and Oceans should better integrate and collaborate on research related to toxic substances at a strategic, interdepartmental level. For collaborative work, departments should identify common needs and priorities, define their respective roles, accountabilities and resources, implement action plans and report results. Departments should take into account the need to integrate such work with other research activities related to health and the environment and to ensure effective communication between science and policy sectors.

3.92 Environment Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency should forthwith implement the provisions of their memorandum of understanding. They should plan and set priorities for research and monitoring, exchange results, consider these results during regulatory decision-making processes and report the results of these actions on a scheduled basis.

3.94 Fisheries and Oceans and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency should proceed forthwith to plan and set priorities for research and monitoring, exchange results, consider these results during regulatory decision-making processes and report the results of these actions on a scheduled basis.

3.114 Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada (including the Pest Management Regulatory Agency) and Natural Resources Canada should, together with other partners, identify current and projected needs regionally and nationally for ambient and effects monitoring of priority industrial chemicals and pesticides, based on program and policy objectives.

3.115 The departments should develop and maintain a co-ordinated inventory of current ambient and effects monitoring programs, including existing sites, species, substances and parameters measured. The inventory should be used to determine gaps relative to identified needs and objectives.

3.116 The departments should collaborate on establishing and maintaining a nationally integrated ambient monitoring system for air and water that is based on identified needs and program and policy objectives. They should also develop and implement a long-term strategy for a nationally co-ordinated environmental effects monitoring program, building upon current industry sector and regional initiatives.

3.117 The departments should consider and evaluate options to extend the "polluter pays" principle to ambient and effects monitoring.

3.128 Environment Canada and Health Canada should forthwith reach a formal conclusion on the toxicity of the 13 substances for which they have not yet done so. The results should be made available to the Canadian public and should provide a clear rationale for the designation of the substances as either toxic or non-toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, bearing in mind the government's commitment to the precautionary principle.

3.131 Environment Canada and Health Canada should develop a process for incorporating new information and reconsidering decisions taken on substances previously assessed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This process should define roles, accountabilities, timelines, decision criteria and procedural steps.

3.141 The Pest Management Regulatory Agency should develop and implement a program of re-evaluation of pesticides presently registered for use in Canada. This program should identify priorities and a schedule for completion. Priorities should be determined in consultation with other government departments, including Environment Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Fisheries and Oceans, as well as other stakeholders.

3.142 The Pest Management Regulatory Agency should develop and document the processes to be followed for pesticide re-evaluations and special reviews. The processes should include a clear definition of responsibilities, timelines and reporting, and should clarify the roles of federal science-based departments in ensuring that the findings of ongoing Canadian research and monitoring are reflected in regulatory assessments. The process for special reviews in particular should identify the conditions that will trigger a review.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Managing the Risks of Toxic Substances: Obstacles to Progress

4.53 Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency should identify specific substances subject to life cycle management, including CEPA toxic equivalents and other substances of concern. Each should develop and apply strategies for life cycle management by substance, sector and/or region.

4.54 Federal departments, including Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada, should each develop a plan for implementing the Toxic Substances Management Policy. Each plan should explicitly recognize and build upon the expertise and capabilities of the department, be consistent with the plans of other departments, and include clear statements of departmental accountability, specific goals and milestones.

4.59 Industry Canada should ensure that its core industry sector programs related to industrial innovation and technology development reflect the government's commitment to pollution prevention. It should commit itself to specific objectives, activities, and timelines for enhancing the principles of pollution prevention within industry, large and small.

4.82 Environment Canada and Health Canada should exercise greater leadership by defining objectives for reducing the risk of industrial chemicals to public health and the environment and by ensuring that risk management options are developed to achieve these objectives.

4.83 Environment Canada and Health Canada should develop plans to implement recommended risk management measures for substances declared toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) before such recommendations are presented to ministers. These plans should include measurable targets, specific timetables, resource estimates and funding sources.

4.84 The roles and responsibilities for implementing recommended risk management measures for substances declared toxic under CEPA should be clearly defined for Environment Canada, Health Canada, Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and other departments. These roles and responsibilities should capitalize on the expertise and capacities of each department.

4.105 Environment Canada, in consultation with other participating departments, should develop a policy outlining conditions necessary for using voluntary initiatives. Before renewing a voluntary initiative, Environment Canada should evaluate its contribution toward the government policy objectives of pollution prevention and life cycle management.

4.106 If Environment Canada chooses to use voluntary initiatives to manage priority substances, including CEPA toxic substances and others, it should establish rigorous requirements for them. At a minimum, these initiatives should include:

• clearly identified environmental objectives;
• the release levels that exist at the beginning of the agreement;
• measurable targets with timelines;
• release or performance measures;
• clearly defined roles and responsibilities;
• consequences for failing to meet targets and rewards and recognition for achieving them;
• a reporting requirement and provision for credible verification; and
• regular evaluation of the initiative to determine progress and consider whether corrective action is necessary.

4.107 If Environment Canada uses voluntary initiatives to manage toxic substances not identified as priorities, it should encourage industry sectors, associations and individual companies to also adopt the same requirements as indicated above.

4.119 The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, in consultation with other federal departments including Environment, Health, Fisheries and Oceans, and Natural Resources, should establish a risk reduction policy for managing pesticides. Among other things, the policy should reflect commitments in the federal government's Pollution Prevention Strategy and the Toxic Substances Management Policy. The risk reduction policy's objectives should be reflected in the registration of new pesticides, the re-evaluation and special review of existing pesticides, and all Agency programs for the promotion of alternatives, including integrated pest management.

4.120 The Pest Management Regulatory Agency should develop and implement, in conjunction with the provinces, a national pesticide risk reduction strategy for Canada.

4.127 Fisheries and Oceans, together with Environment Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, should develop a policy on sustainable aquaculture that addresses, among other things, the use of pesticides and other products in aquaculture as well as the role of integrated pest management.

4.128 The Agency should ensure that its pesticide registration decisions do not create conflicts with other federal legislation, including but not limited to the Fisheries Act . Where such conflicts may arise, the Agency should exchange scientific and/or policy advice with other departments before registration decisions are taken.

4.134 Environment Canada should ensure that releases of priority toxic substances are reliably monitored and reported through either the National Pollutant Release Inventory or other means, where that would be more appropriate, and should periodically publish progress made toward achieving release reduction targets.

4.138 The Pest Management Regulatory Agency should meet is commitment to establish a national database of pesticide sales in order to monitor the use of pesticides and gauge the effectiveness of risk reduction activities.