Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

Canadian Environmental Protection Act

19 June 2006

Johanne Gélinas,
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I am accompanied today by John Reed, Principal.

The purpose of my presentation today is to support your evaluation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) by recapping for you some of our past work that has a bearing on the Act. Specifically, we will highlight some key findings as well as ongoing concerns about the government's assessment and management of toxic substances.

As all committee members know, the production, use, and release of industrial chemicals, pesticides, and their by-products in Canada can pose serious risks to the health of Canadians and to our environment. For this reason, in 1999 we audited the federal government's scientific investigation of existing industrial chemicals and pesticides and its management of their use.

The Commissioner's 1999 Report, Chapter 3, Understanding the Risks from Toxic Substances: Cracks in the Foundation of the Federal House, focussed on how federal departments provide scientific information to support decision making. The chapter examined the co-ordination of research among federal departments, the state of environmental monitoring networks, and the scientific assessment of existing industrial chemicals and pesticides. Overall, we concluded that the federal government's ability to detect and understand the effects of toxic substances on Canadians and our ecosystems was seriously threatened.

Again in our 1999 Report, Chapter 4, Managing the Risks of Toxic Substances: Obstacles to Progress, focussed on federal departments' management of the risks created by substances identified as toxic. The chapter examined legislation, government-wide policies, and voluntary programs used for virtual elimination, life cycle management, and pollution prevention, and for tracking and reporting toxic releases. Overall, we concluded that the federal government was not managing the risks adequately.

In my 2002 Report, Chapter 1, Toxic Substances Revisited, we examined the departments we had initially audited to assess their progress in implementing our 27 recommendations. We found mixed progress. Although the federal government had made some progress in managing toxic substances since our 1999 audit, its ability to detect, understand, and prevent the harmful effects of toxic substances was still quite limited. The processes we observed seemed to defy timely, decisive, and precautionary action. Many of the root causes of problems we found in 1999 continued in 2002, including under-resourced commitments, major gaps in scientific knowledge, and burdensome regulatory processes. I said at the time that the situation was not environmentally, economically, or socially acceptable and that it did not augur well for our health or our environment. The status of recommendations made at that time is included in your briefing package.

Although our work on toxic substances included aspects of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it was much broader than the Act alone. While our findings are somewhat dated, we hope that they can support the Committee's evaluation.

John Reed, the principal who led our 1999 and 2002 work on toxic substances will now lead you through a brief slide deck to expand on some of these findings and their implications for your evaluation. After his presentation, we will be happy to respond to your questions as usual.