3.12 There are many types and definitions of toxic substances. In this chapter, "toxic substances" include industrial and commercial chemicals, heavy metals, manufacturing byproducts and pesticides that, when released into the environment, have the potential to harm human health or environmental quality. According to Canada's "Domestic Substances List", there are over 23,000 chemical substances in industrial and commercial use in Canada. In addition, there are 500 active ingredients (the component with pesticidal activity) in registered pesticides products in Canada. Many of these are not considered to pose a risk to human or ecosystem health. But some do. Exhibit 3.1 identifies some common groups of toxic substances, their sources of release and the potential health effects associated with them.
3.14 Diverse views in Canadian society. The subject of toxic substances is also complex because of the large number of players involved, each with its own perspective and interest. In addition to the federal government, they include industry associations and individual companies; health, consumer and environmental interest groups; academic and scientific organizations; and territorial and provincial governments. While they share many areas of common ground, there are other areas and issues on which their respective positions are highly polarized and deeply divided. Decision making in this context involves integrating diverse and legitimate economic, social, environmental and health considerations and balancing often-competing views and values. Some of the issues on which opinions are divided include:
3.16 One group of these activities entails the collection and use of scientific information to decide which substances pose the greatest risk to human health and environmental quality and thus ought to be managed. Our audit observations and recommendations on selected scientific and risk assessment activities are reported in this chapter. Another set of activities involves the use of scientific, technological and economic information to decide what controls, if any, are needed to achieve acceptable levels of risk. Our observations and recommendations on selected risk management activities are reported in Chapter 4, Managing the Risks of Toxic Substances: Obstacles to Progress . The links between these chapters are illustrated in Exhibit 3.2 .
3.18 Toxicity and risk. Generally, toxicity refers to the capability of a substance to injure humans and ecosystems. In this sense, all substances - both natural and synthetic - are potentially toxic. But it is the dose that makes the poison: even highly toxic substances will not cause harm unless people or wildlife are exposed to them in air, water, soil or food.
3.19 The concept of risk is central to federal decision making on toxic substances and, by extension, was central to this audit. In simple terms, risk refers to the probability of experiencing harm combined with the extent of that harm. It is a function of the hazard presented by a substance and of our exposure to it. Estimating risk is not simple, and risk assessment is almost a scientific discipline unto itself. In theory, scientific calculations of the risk posed by some industrial chemicals and pesticides can be compared with levels considered to be acceptable and with the risk posed by other activities or conditions. The relative priority of the substances can then be established, and the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of reducing the associated risk can be evaluated.
3.20 We live in a world full of risk. Driving a car, taking medication, smoking, and sunbathing are all activities that have a risk associated with them. Some risks result from personal choices; others are imposed on us. The extent to which toxic substances in the environment pose significant risks to human health and ecosystems is not a matter of scientific consensus. Some believe that the risks posed are insignificant - or at least acceptable - especially compared with other risks encountered and tolerated every day. Others disagree.
3.21 We are often faced with choices involving trade-offs between risks and benefits. Modern chemicals provide important economic, health and social benefits. Therefore, actions to reduce risks by eliminating exposure can have significant economic and social implications. For this reason, stakeholders often debate whether the costs of reducing the risks, including lost uses of the substance, are worth the benefits.
3.22 The use of chlorine to disinfect drinking water is an example of the complexity of risk as it pertains to toxic substances. The use of chlorine has been heralded as one of the most successful public health initiatives ever and is believed to prevent thousands of potentially fatal infections each year. Recently, however, chlorination by-products in drinking water have been linked to cases of bladder cancer, illustrating that there are benefits and risks associated with the same activity.
3.24 Many factors affect health. Exposure to toxic substances is only one of many factors that affect the health of Canadians. Nutrition, alcohol consumption, smoking, genetics, exposure to diseases, even economic status contribute to our health. Some groups of people are at greater risk than others, through higher exposure, increased susceptibility, or a combination of both. Occupation, diet (fish and game), or proximity to industrialized areas can increase exposure. Factors that contribute to susceptibility include weakened immune systems, genetics and age. Children are considered especially susceptible to the effects of toxic substances. This fact prompted the federal government and seven other countries to sign a Declaration on Children's Environmental Health in 1997 in which they affirm their commitment to improve levels of protection from industrial chemicals and pesticides for children.
3.25 Toxic substances are only one of many stresses on ecosystems. Other environmental stresses such as climate change, increased ultraviolet radiation and acid rain interact with toxic substances in ecosystems and can affect their potential to cause harm.
3.26 Basis of priorities. Different attributes are used to determine risk and set priorities for the management of organic and inorganic substances. These include persistence, bioaccumulation, bioavailability, transformation, mobility and toxicity. Generally, substances that are persistent, mobile and toxic are of greatest concern for the environment and to human health. Substances that have low persistence and low toxicity and that do not bioaccumulate are less likely to pose risks.
3.28 In the Great Lakes, however, concentrations of contaminants that decreased significantly when pollutant releases were first reduced are no longer declining at the expected rate, despite continuing reductions in releases. This has been characterized as a "plateau" effect, which may reflect an ecosystem response that can also be expected in other regions. Possible explanations for this effect are being debated in the scientific community. In addition, reduction trends do not extend to all habitats or all species. For example, there are fisheries that remain closed as a result of the presence of toxic substances. Furthermore, other ecosystems such as the Arctic continue to be vulnerable, predominantly due to long-range atmospheric transport and longer residence times of toxic substances due to the cold climate.
3.29 Shift in focus of attention. Historically, the testing of substances for toxicity has focussed on their potential to cause cancer as well as acute effects, which are sudden and severe. This focus continues, but attention has broadened to other end points such as reproductive disorders, behaviour problems and respiratory illnesses. These effects are harder to detect and may result from long-term, continuous, low-dose exposure. We now know that even small amounts of some toxic substances can have serious negative impacts when exposure occurs over a long period of time. There is also growing concern about exposure to mixtures of substances that can have cumulative effects.
3.30 An example of this shifting focus is endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which are chemicals that alter the activities of hormones. Hormones help control growth, development, reproduction and behavior, and interfering with any of these functions can have a significant effect. While field studies show that EDCs have such effects on wildlife, they have not been directly linked to the same effects in humans, although research is continuing. EDCs have many sources, including pesticides and effluent from sewage treatment plants. Scientists have studied EDCs for over 25 years, but the issue has gained new prominence in recent years.
3.31 An incomplete knowledge base. Our knowledge base of the toxicity, effects and risks of toxic substances is incomplete and still evolving. We have good information on relatively few substances. For many individual substances, we have little data about toxicity, persistence and exposure and there are many unknowns about their effects. The risks may be significant. The risks may be insignificant. Based on what is known, and considering what is not yet known, the use and release of toxic substances remain a cause for concern.
3.33 Because scientific uncertainties will always remain, the Canadian government and other governments worldwide subscribed to Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). More commonly known as the precautionary principle, it states:
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
3.35 We attempted to determine the resources spent by departments, individually and collectively, on scientific assessment and risk management activities. We were unable to do so, due to wide variations in the completeness and specificity of the information provided by departments. This is partly because departmental expenditure management systems are designed to meet other requirements (and do not necessarily capture information in the way we requested for our audit) and partly because activities related to toxic substances are not always easily distinguished from other associated activities or environmental and health issues.
3.36 Links to other jurisdictions and organizations. Many federal departments and research institutions are engaged in activities to understand and assess the effects of toxic substances. But the federal government does not act alone in this regard. Departments participate in and rely upon the work of many domestic and international organizations. Scientific data on the toxicity and effects of toxic substances, for example, are often developed by private industry, according to internationally established testing protocols, and are shared (harmonized) by several governments. Internationally co-ordinated scientific assessments are used to support treaties such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Heavy Metals Protocol. Domestically, some environmental monitoring information is collected by provincial governments.
3.38 The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is important federal legislation for controlling industrial and commercial chemicals and wastes. The Act gives the federal government authority to regulate, throughout their life cycle, substances that are determined to be toxic. To date, 46 substances have been declared toxic under the Act.
3.39 Since its introduction in 1988, CEPA has been the subject of extensive study and critique. In 1994, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development initiated a major review of the Act. The Committee's report, "It's About Our Health! Towards Pollution Prevention", led to the introduction of a Bill to amend CEPA. At the time of this audit, the Committee was considering hundreds of amendments. Because the new legislation will, when passed, result in many changes, our audit did not address specific regulations and processes under the current CEPA .
3.40 The Fisheries Act is also important to the control of toxic substances because it prohibits the release of any deleterious substance into waters frequented by fish, unless permitted by regulation. Section 36 of the Fisheries Act is administered by Environment Canada, based on a 1978 Prime Ministerial directive, although the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans retains overall responsibility for all sections of the Fisheries Act .
3.41 The Pest Control Products Act ( PCPA ) controls pesticides by means of detailed pre-market assessment and registration. It is administered by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), an agency within Health Canada. The PMRA was formed in 1995 to consolidate, under a single agency, the pesticide regulatory functions previously carried out by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Health Canada, and Natural Resources Canada. Decision-making authority over pesticide registration resides entirely with the PMRA. At the time of the Agency's formation, the government committed itself to introducing amendments to the PCPA that would modernize pesticide regulation in Canada and contribute to the goals of environmental sustainability. To date, no amendments have been introduced.
3.43 Some components of the overall federal infrastructure for the assessment of toxic substances were excluded from the scope of this audit - for instance, the assessment and regulation of new pesticides and industrial chemicals, legislation dealing with hazardous chemicals in foods such as the Food and Drugs Act or in consumer products such as the Hazardous Products Act, and human health surveillance programs conducted by Health Canada (currently undergoing an audit by the Auditor General of Canada).
3.44 Our observations first summarize overarching issues that emerged in the audit. We discuss the ability of federal departments to meet the growing demands for scientific information; the co-ordination of research among federal departments; the state of the federal government's environmental monitoring networks; and procedures in place to incorporate new information into decision making. As many of these activities involve more than one federal department, we also report on interdepartmental co-operation and collaboration.
3.45 Our observations and recommendations on the government's risk management programs for existing industrial chemicals and pesticides are reported in Chapter 4, Managing the Risks of Toxic Substances: Obstacles to Progress. About the Audit at the end of Chapter 4 provides details on the objectives, scope, approach and criteria of the audit that was the basis for this chapter and Chapter 4.
3.47 Scientific information produced through ongoing research, monitoring and assessment is used to answer these questions and is the foundation for understanding risks and making informed decisions.
3.48 Good scientific information is essential for many reasons. First, Canadians' health depends on it: unless we identify which substances pose a risk, we cannot act to reduce it. Second, together with economic, technological and social information, it supports informed decisions on how risks are to be managed. Third, after measures have been put in place to reduce risks, good scientific information can tell us whether the measures are achieving the desired result. The federal government's commitment to base its decisions on sound scientific information is reflected and repeated in legislation, departmental mandates and sustainable development strategies, and in government-wide strategies and policies.
3.49 Government failures could affect health. Our audit identified many weaknesses in the federal government's collection and use of scientific information on toxic substances. We found weaknesses in interdepartmental co-ordination of research efforts, incomplete monitoring networks, a lack of re-evaluation of pesticides, conflicting departmental agendas and priorities, and a growing gap between the demands placed on departments and the availability of resources to meet those demands. Cumulatively, we believe these cracks in the foundation threaten the federal government's ability to detect, understand and prevent the harmful effects of toxic substances on the health of Canadians and their environment.
3.51 Some level of fragmentation in the overall federal infrastructure is unavoidable and, in itself, is unimportant. But it underscores the need for federal departments to work co-operatively together to ensure that the full expertise of the federal government - and other partners - is brought to bear for the benefit of human health and environmental protection.
3.52 The audit identified several examples of discord among various aspects of the federal infrastructure. We had expected that departments would be able to identify and resolve such conflicts and we were struck on many occasions by their inability to do so.
3.53 Differences in legislation. Differences in the provisions and interpretation of legislation that governs toxic substances are at the root of some conflicts among departments. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) and the Fisheries Act each have different thresholds of acceptable risk. The Fisheries Act, for example, is based on "zero tolerance". No deleterious substance may be deposited in waters frequented by fish unless under conditions authorized by regulation. The PCPA, however, allows for some level of acceptable risk associated with the use of pesticides. Even though a pesticide may be legally registered for use under the PCPA , its use in waters frequented by fish could be in contravention of the Fisheries Act . The herbicidal use of acrolein in irrigation canals presents one example of the conflict between the PCPA and the Fisheries Act , as illustrated in Exhibit 3.5 . The practice of aquaculture, discussed in Chapter 4 , is another example.
3.54 The residual nature of CEPA means that it does not apply to the use of substances that are covered by another piece of legislation. For example, if a particular substance has both industrial and pesticidal uses, CEPA provides for assessment of only the effects of the industrial use. This has led to the need to clearly delineate the scope and boundaries of risk assessments and risk management processes under CEPA.
3.55 Divisions among departments. The diverse and polarized perspectives within Canadian society at large are also manifest to an extent in the mandates of departments and the positions adopted by them. This has led to conflict among departments. Some conflicts relate to long-standing scientific disagreement about the specific risks posed by some individual toxic substances; this has had significant implications for the risk management activities addressed in Chapter 4. There are also differences of opinion on the interpretation and application of legislation and the nature of departmental roles and authorities.
3.56 Differences over industrial chemicals are most marked between Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans and Health Canada on the one hand and Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada on the other. Differences over pesticides are most marked between Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans on the one hand and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency on the other.
3.57 We recognize that debate among scientists is a normal and important feature of scientific investigation, when it occurs in a process that is open and transparent. As well, recognition and accommodation of diverse views and opinions in society is a necessary part of public policy development and implementation. However, we believe that conflicts between departments have in many cases surpassed a healthy level of debate and have led to strained relations, indecision and inaction, inefficient use of federal resources and expertise and, in at least one case, Canada's international embarrassment.
3.58 The economic importance of many modern chemicals - let alone the potential costs of reducing or eliminating the risks associated with their emission or use - causes all departments to strive for scientific certainty. Those who will bear the costs want proof of cause and effect, and evidence that the risks are real and significant. Yet, as we have noted, scientific certainty is often not possible to achieve. Departments sometimes disagree on how to deal with uncertainty, and the federal government has failed to develop a clear and consistent interpretation and application of the precautionary principle as it relates to toxic substances.
3.60 Declining scientific resources. A decline in resources devoted to overall scientific investigation in the federal government has been well documented, including by previous reports of the Auditor General. In order to meet the government's fiscal objectives established in its 1994 Program Review, departments reduced many areas of programming. From 1994 to 1998, four science-based departments - Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Health and Natural Resources - reduced their total scientific personnel by 17 percent.
3.61 These departments report that resources dedicated to the scientific investigation and assessment of toxic substances have also been reduced. We were unable to identify specific levels of reduction, however, due to variations in the completeness and specificity of information provided by departments.
3.62 Weakened morale. In Chapters 1 and 2 of his April 1998 Report, the Auditor General examined the implementation of Program Review and its impacts on the public service work force. During our audit, many scientists from all departments expressed to us their serious concerns about impacts of Program Review on people. These concerns were consistent with those noted in the Auditor General's Report: increased workload, significant loss of key senior scientists and skilled employees, and generally low employee morale.
3.63 Existing demands not being met. Within existing budgets, departments are struggling to meet legislated responsibilities, policy commitments and international treaty obligations and, in many cases, are failing to do so. Some assessments of priority substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act began in 1989 and remain inconclusive today. Re-evaluations of pesticides under the Pest Control Products Act have not been undertaken due, in part, to lack of resources. As illustrated by Exhibit 3.6 , budget reductions have substantially curtailed health and environmental research in the Great Lakes region of Canada, and some international commitments for this region are not being fully met.
3.64 Demands are growing. The demands placed on departments for scientific investigation and assessment related to toxic substances continue to change and are expected to increase. For example:
3.66 Budget reductions have also affected the ability of federal departments to leverage their resources with outside organizations and to enter into new partnerships. If the federal government does not have sufficient resources, potential collaborators may not view the effort as mutually beneficial.
3.67 The influence of external partners. Partnerships are frequently used in scientific research and can provide benefits for all parties. Budget reductions have necessitated an emphasis on partnerships and have led federal departments to augment their research budgets from private sector and other outside sources. As a result, departmental projects have become more aligned with the priorities of the funders. These priorities may differ from those established by the department. Senior scientists expressed to us concern about the impact these new priorities may have on the ability of departments to undertake research for the public good.
3.68 Determining whether the federal government is spending the right amount of money on research and monitoring of toxic substances is inherently elusive and beyond our mandate. Nevertheless, we were alarmed by the level of concern among senior scientists in all departments and associated scientific organizations about the government's declining ability to respond to new demands and emerging issues.
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.
3.72 We observed that these scientific research, monitoring and assessment programs are compartmentalized both among and within departments. Departmental research programs are distinguished by the substances, species and media (air, water, land) they address and by the diverse scientific disciplines of their staff and their facilities. In some departments, this research is organized under a single program like Fisheries and Oceans' Toxics Chemicals Program, while in other departments it is dispersed among different branches. Research priorities are generally developed separately by departments, in accordance with their mandates, legislative responsibilities and client interests.
3.73 We had expected that departments would identify common needs and priorities, share research findings and undertake collaborative and integrated projects where warranted. The need for effective co-ordination is stressed in the federal government's 1996 Science and Technology Strategy, and co-ordination is essential if taxpayers are to receive best value for tax dollars.
3.74 The need for co-ordination is especially pronounced in the area of toxic substances. First, given the sheer number of projects under way at any given time, there is an ongoing need to ensure that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. Second, toxic substances require an interdisciplinary approach, combining the knowledge and expertise of various departments and scientists. Like pieces of a puzzle, the combined federal capacity can fit together to produce a more complete picture and answer important questions.
3.76 On the other hand, we observed several examples of positive co-operation and good working relations between departments. This occurs formally through major research programs and individual projects as well as more informally, between researchers who maintain links with their colleagues in other departments. Such co-ordination often occurs in reaction to specific problems or issues.
3.77 Collaboration is possible. Experience demonstrates that interdepartmental co-operation on complex environmental issues is possible. Departments identified scientific assessments under the Northern Contaminants Program (administered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada - see Chapter 6 of this Report ) and on acid rain as examples of joint priority setting and positive collaboration. When specific funding was provided, departments worked co-operatively on research projects. These projects produced good results and Canada is well regarded for some of the outcomes of this work. The National Dioxin Sampling Program, a monitoring program, was also identified as an example of interdepartmental collaboration.
3.78 Further, the departments of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Agri-Food and Health have agreed through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to co-ordinate environmental research. There is no working group that addresses toxic substances overall at a strategic level, although working groups have been established to address two specific types of toxic substances: metals in the environment and endocrine disrupting chemicals.
3.79 Through the recently announced $40 million Toxic Substances Research Initiative (TSRI), departments have also demonstrated that they can collaborate on defining research priorities. These include research on persistent organic pollutants, toxic forms of metals, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, air pollutants and cumulative effects of toxic substances. We note that the initiative proposes an entirely new structure to administer funding and to review and approve research proposals, perhaps indicating that existing mechanisms for interdepartmental collaboration require improvement.
3.80 Overall integration is lacking. Our major concern is a lack of integration and management of the research agenda on toxic substances at the strategic level, that is, above the level of individual departments and research programs. Collectively, departments are not "managing the forest", only the trees. Data and findings from ongoing individual research programs in areas of mutual interest are not routinely combined and compared. We are concerned that departments may be missing opportunities for sharing information, establishing government-wide priorities, or engaging in long-term planning that mobilizes their respective expertise and resources.
3.81 We believe that where issues transcend departmental mandates-such as toxic industrial chemicals and pesticides-strategic leadership is essential to achieve results. Although the above-noted MOU could provide a forum for improved integration, no department has stepped forward to lead such integration, despite opportunities to do so. The working group on metals in the environment has identified scientific and policy questions that departments will address through individual and joint research projects. Some projects, however, have suffered or stalled because they lacked a departmental champion, and there appears to be little incentive for individual departments to pool resources or to take ownership of issues and projects.
3.82 We recognize that strategic management of research on industrial chemicals and pesticides is a challenge. There are many different substances to deal with. Moreover, research on toxic substances must be considered alongside research on other environmental stresses and issues. In our view, however, these challenges are not insurmountable.
3.84 Departments noted various internal and ongoing efforts to foster links between science and policy. Still, we were struck by the extent to which both scientists and policy makers identified the need to improve communication between them. The challenge for policy makers is to clearly articulate the issues that require scientific answers. In turn, scientists need to identify the capabilities, limits and timelines of their research and to identify emerging issues that could require policy action.
3.85 The evolving issue of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) illustrates the need for a co-ordinated research plan by federal departments as well as effective two-way communication. We observed that Environment Canada, Health Canada and Fisheries and Oceans have initiated research and information-sharing activities on EDCs, in accordance with their own mandates. Despite the existence of a working group on EDCs under the interdepartmental MOU, these departments do not yet appear to have developed an integrated research program that combines their respective capacities and expertise. Nor have the departments jointly identified government-wide policy and regulatory questions that would guide research activities.
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.
3.88 Weak links to other departments. Overall, we have significant concerns about the lack of effective co-operation between the PMRA and the departments that undertake scientific research activities. There is little evidence that the departments and the PMRA, on a routine or regular basis, discuss their work or share their findings and set priorities for subsequent work. The PMRA has gained a reputation as a "closed shop" and is perceived not to welcome input from other federal departments. Despite this, pesticides-related research is ongoing in departments such as Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada.
3.89 Lack of information sharing. To properly target research into the environmental effects of pesticides, departments first need basic information on the composition of pesticides. The PMRA possesses this type of information and Environment Canada has asked for it. Because the PCPA is silent on the sharing of such information, the legislation that applies is the Access to Information Act . However, the Agency has indicated that the confidentiality provisions of that Act preclude the sharing of the information with other departments. Proposed amendments to the PCPA would allow the Agency to do so.
3.90 Further obstacles. Information on known or reported adverse effects is also crucial to departments' ability to determine the full range of a pesticide's effects. As noted in paragraph 3.133 , the PCPA does not currently provide for the reporting of adverse effects. In some cases, departments obtained this type of information from U.S. sources.
3.91 Recognition that improvements are needed. Following years of protracted negotiations, in 1998 the PMRA and Environment Canada signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to improve communication and clarify their respective roles and responsibilities in the exchange and use of scientific information. Effective implementation of the MOU provisions for such exchange has barely begun. Environment Canada spent approximately $1.3 million on pesticide research and monitoring in 1997-98, but it is not clear how either the Agency or the Department intends to use and align this work to support the intent of the MOU.
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.
3.93 Fisheries and Oceans also conducts research that has relevance to the management of pesticides. Fisheries and Oceans and the PMRA have also developed an MOU, although it remains unsigned because of the unresolved conflict between the PCPA and the Fisheries Act on the use of pesticides in aquaculture .
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.
3.96 Historically, federal, provincial and territorial governments have shared responsibility for some monitoring of toxic substances. At the federal level, Environment Canada has the primary responsibility for monitoring air, water and ecosystems. Fisheries and Oceans monitors fish and fish habitat in fresh and marine waters, and Natural Resources Canada monitors forests.
3.97 Surveillance is similar to monitoring except that it is conducted on a shorter-term basis. Natural Resources Canada undertakes geoscience surveys to establish national baseline levels of naturally occurring metals. While these activities do not produce long-term monitoring data, they can provide valuable information to scientists and policy makers.
3.98 Repeated calls for an effective monitoring system. There is no substitute for Canadian-based monitoring information. Well-designed and well-equipped monitoring sites can-and must-serve multiple environmental and health issues. Time after time, federal departments and other organizations have stressed the importance of and need for effective monitoring, and so have various studies, assessments and international agreements. Despite this, Environment Canada's resources for monitoring have been declining steadily since 1990. We expected to find that Environment Canada, together with other departments, had established clear priorities and co-ordinated existing national programs and monitoring networks, including provisions for data assessment, to meet established objectives.
3.99 Weaknesses in interdepartmental co-ordination. Many of our comments on the lack of interdepartmental co-ordination of research apply equally to monitoring. This is because research makes use of data on ambient and effects monitoring, and vice versa. Research and monitoring are often conducted together, in some cases at the same site.
3.101 Environment Canada operates a national air-monitoring network known as National Air Pollution Surveillance. Although the Department has identified industrial chemicals and pesticides that should be monitored under domestic and international initiatives, this network tracks only half of them and even those are not monitored at every site in the network.
3.102 There is no national network for water-based ambient monitoring. Monitoring of individual watersheds in regional initiatives such as the Atlantic Coastal Action Program or Great Lakes 2000, while important, is tailored to only specific issues and substances. The regional data that do exist are not integrated or synthesized to form a national picture.
3.103 Need for co-ordinated monitoring. Environment Canada's responsibilities for various types of monitoring are dispersed among different services and institutes of the Department; there is therefore a strong need for co-ordination and for someone to be accountable for the "big picture". Currently, there is no overall focus and little horizontal co-ordination or integration of data across the groups. Accountability, even for co-ordination between the existing networks, is unclear.
3.105 In our view, the federal government's approach to effects monitoring is disorganized and lacks focus. We observed a patchwork of initiatives that have been implemented under the banner of "effects monitoring". Each of these is important in its own right. There is no evidence, however, that Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans or other departments have, either individually or collectively, established a strategic, co-ordinated approach to implementing a national program of environmental effects monitoring based on research and other priorities. As with ambient monitoring, accountability is decentralized and unclear.
3.106 Monitoring for effects in industrial sectors. The federal government has applied one type of effects monitoring to industrial activities. In 1992, a national program of environmental effects monitoring (EEM) for the pulp and paper sector was established under the Fisheries Act . It is the first Canadian example of a legislated requirement for environmental monitoring that involves the collection of data on fish and other aquatic species, toxicity, and levels of contaminants in living organisms, water and sediment. The cost is borne by industry, requiring mills to install, maintain and operate calibrated equipment. Similar regulations are currently being developed for the mining sector.
3.107 The "polluter pays" principle has also been applied to monitoring activities in other jurisdictions in Canada. British Columbia and Alberta have each implemented programs in which industrial and other sources of air contaminants pay annual fees related to monitoring of ambient air quality in some areas of these provinces.
3.108 Support for a long-term ecosystem approach. Federal departments, led by Environment Canada, have repeatedly stated their intention to support an "ecosystem approach" to environmental management. Ecosystems are living laboratories in which the long-term effects of environmental stresses, including toxic substances, can be measured in living things and in the surrounding environment. Changes in ecosystems can be subtle and hard to detect or predict; an ecosystem approach demands a long-term perspective. This is well illustrated by Exhibit 3.8 , which describes the benefits of the ecosystem approach in Kejimkujik National Park, Nova Scotia.
3.109 Regional initiatives in Canada. Many issues are regional in scope and are best dealt with at that level. Environment Canada initiated and leads so-called "flagship" regional ecosystem initiatives in the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence River, Atlantic Coastal Region, Northern River Basin, Fraser River and Georgia Basin. The Great Lakes program is the oldest, dating back to 1989. Ambient and effects monitoring are combined in these regions. No other Canadian regions or ecosystems are being monitored.
3.110 A federal inventory is missing. A national effort to incorporate and collate regional data is missing. There is no collective inventory of the substances, locations and species presently being monitored by federal departments. Different types of initiatives exist in individual departments, however. For example, Fisheries and Oceans has a National Contaminants Information System, a computerized database of information on toxic chemicals in fish, other aquatic life and their habitats. In addition, Environment Canada's Atlantic Region has developed a CD-ROM that catalogues regional environmental monitoring networks. These examples are a starting point toward documenting and understanding the capacity for monitoring, and could help in identifying gaps and implementing programs to fill them.
3.111 Toward a national network? Environment Canada has attempted to promote co-ordination within the existing national infrastructure of monitoring sites and organizations, through the creation in 1994 of the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN). EMAN includes over 100 sites operated by a multitude of agencies, including federal departments, provincial governments and universities.
3.112 EMAN has faced - and still faces - significant challenges in integrating data from sites that predate its creation. The result has been a potpourri of data and information that is not always comparable and hence is not widely used. Environment Canada's own review of EMAN indicates that its resources are not sufficient, given the magnitude of the task; its efforts are unfocussed; and it is not well known or supported even within Environment Canada. We believe that the intent of EMAN is important and could help stitch together Canada's patchwork of monitoring systems.
3.113 Ignored for too long. Federal departments have repeatedly stressed the need for effective monitoring. Departments appear to be well aware of the shortcomings of existing networks and programs, based on the numerous departmental reviews and studies we examined during this audit. Their recommendations have invariably called for a revitalization of monitoring toward a more integrated, effective national system. Yet shortcomings persist. We believe weaknesses in the federal government's environmental monitoring are impeding the government's ability to detect the presence of toxic substances in our environment, to determine their effects on species, ecosystems and humans, and to measure the effectiveness of risk management initiatives on a long-term 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.
3.120 Many of the 23,000 chemical substances in industrial and commercial use in Canada are not considered to pose a risk to human or ecosystem health. However, some can. The Priority Substances Assessment Program was created to fill the gaps in knowledge about these substances, including information on their toxicity, the extent to which people and ecosystems are exposed to them, and the risks they pose to human or environmental health. In this program, the ministers of Health and Environment identify substances that will undergo priority assessment to determine if they are toxic according to the Act.
3.121 Under CEPA , a substance can be declared toxic if it meets one or more of three criteria: if it poses or may pose a risk to the environment, to the environment that supports human life, or to human health. The designation of a substance as `` CEPA toxic" has important implications for the options available to federal authorities in implementing risk management programs.
3.122 In 1989, 44 substances or groups of substances were selected for priority assessment. These assessments were completed within five years. By 1994, 25 of the assessed substances were declared to be CEPA toxic. Risk management for these substances is addressed in Chapter 4 . Assessments of 25 more substances or groups of substances on a second priority list began in 1995 and are scheduled for completion in December 2000.
3.123 The process used to select and assess the first priority substances was new to Environment Canada, Health Canada and other participants. The process was criticized, due in part to weaknesses in the selection of the substances to be assessed (some had very limited use in commerce) and in the characterization of risks and sources of exposure. These weaknesses have affected the risk management of the substances, as discussed in Chapter 4 . A variety of changes were subsequently introduced to improve the process for the second list of priority substances.
3.124 Data gaps precluded decisions. Assessments of the first group of substances were made on the basis of available data; new research was not commissioned. For 13 of the 44 substances originally identified, Environment Canada and Health Canada were unable to reach a conclusion about toxicity against all three criteria under CEPA . This was primarily because they lacked sufficient information about the extent of exposure to these substances. The substances were, by definition, high priorities and therefore we had expected that the departments would identify and fill the gaps in information and complete the assessment process.
3.125 No formal decision taken. A research plan was developed to gather the missing data on 7 of the 13 substances. No additional work was conducted on the other 6 substances, in part because existing resources had already been allocated to assessing the second list of priority substances and in part because exposure was considered negligible. Although four years have passed since completion of the initial assessments, no formal decision under CEPA has been made or announced on these 13 substances, and the results and conclusions of the additional research have not been published. Yet these 13 substances are officially listed as "non-toxic" on Environment Canada's and Health Canada's Internet sites.
3.126 In 1994, a Notice of Objection was filed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, demanding that the departments reach a conclusion on the toxicity of these substances. The government took the position that it was not legally obliged under the Act to reach a conclusion. We believe that given the substantial public funds that were spent to conduct these assessments, the federal government is accountable for "closing the files" and providing Canadians with a clear rationale for the listing of these substances as non-toxic.
3.127 Lessons for the precautionary principle? Experience with the CEPA priority assessments illustrates the challenges of dealing with scientific uncertainty and applying the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle suggests that a lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone cost-effective action. In this instance, in the face of uncertainty the substances were treated as non-toxic under CEPA and were thus not formally targeted for any risk management activity. Yet over half of these substances were identified as "substances of concern" under other risk management activities, as described in Chapter 4 . This demonstrates a lack of consistency in applying the precautionary principle.
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.
3.130 Formal procedures not yet developed. Currently, Environment Canada and Health Canada react to new information on an informal, ad hoc basis. We found no specific procedures for incorporating such information into decisions. Ground rules governing specific roles, accountabilities, decision criteria and procedural steps have not been defined or documented. The absence of a formal process for revisiting a decision may lead to confusion among all participants in the future and leave the government open to legal challenge.
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.
3.133 Of the 500 active ingredients contained in registered pesticides, over 300 were approved before 1981 and over 150 before 1960. Many pesticides were approved when the standards were much less stringent than they are today. The changes in pesticide registration include new health and environmental standards, and more consistent and reliable methods of testing. Ongoing scientific research may discover unintended harmful effects of pesticides registered many years ago. In addition, reports of adverse effects of pesticidal use (also known as incident reports) are another source of new information about previously assessed pesticides. Legislation in the United States requires that manufacturers provide the government with reports of any unexpected adverse effects that it receives; however, the PCPA has no such requirement.
3.134 Regulations under the PCPA allow for the cancellation or suspension of a pesticide's registration if new information indicates that the product does not meet current safety standards. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency uses re-evaluations to systematically review all aspects of the active ingredient and end-use products. The need to re-evaluate pesticides has been formally recognized by the federal government for over 13 years, and we expected that it would have developed a program to do so. We found Canada's track record to be one of inaction and unfulfilled commitments.
3.135 No program for re-evaluations. In 1986, priorities for re-evaluation were developed by Agriculture Canada, which at that time was responsible for pesticide registration. The re-evaluations were not implemented. This major shortcoming has been underscored by a number of organizations, including the Auditor General of Canada in his 1988 Report.
3.136 Upon its creation in 1995, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency was directed to develop and implement a pesticide re-evaluation program. It has not yet done so. Although a program is being developed, the PMRA's budget has allocated no funds specifically to re-evaluation activities. The PMRA is funded partially by annual appropriations and partially by cost recovery. Actual revenues from cost recovery have been well below expectations and, according to the PMRA, this has delayed implementation of the re-evaluation program. The absence of an effective re-evaluation program means there is no assurance that Canadians are not being exposed to unacceptable risk.
3.137 Canada is lagging behind other countries. An international benchmarking study commissioned by the PMRA ranked Canada behind the U.S., the United Kingdom and Australia in the ratio of spending on re-evaluation of existing pesticides to spending on registration of new pesticides. In the U.S. the re-evaluation of pesticides became a legislated requirement in 1988. Since then, many specific uses of pesticides have been de-registered. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a program of ongoing re-evaluation. In 1997-98, it spent 25 percent more on re-evaluation activities than on the registration of new pesticides.
3.138 Few re-evaluations undertaken in Canada. When re-evaluation priorities were established in 1986, three groups of pesticides were already being re-evaluated. Those re-evaluations have been under way now for close to 20 years; none have been concluded. Decisions have been continually deferred, although incremental actions were taken to reduce the use and risks of some pesticides. The re-evaluation of pentachlorophenol, for example, began in 1980 and the PMRA has committed to its completion in 1999.
3.139 The process of special reviews. A second way of examining a previously registered pesticide in light of new information is through the special review process. A special review is initiated in response to a specific concern about a pesticide. For example, after scientists had for several years expressed concerns about the effects of carbofuran on wildlife, a special review was started in 1990 and concluded in 1998 (see Exhibit 3.9) . The PMRA has initiated no other special reviews since its creation.
3.140 Lack of a clear process. There is no clearly delineated process that identifies steps to be followed in undertaking re-evaluations or special reviews, the roles of each of the various participants, the criteria to be used in making decisions, and the respective accountabilities. In 1986 a re-evaluation process was developed in draft form but it has not been updated since. We are particularly concerned by the lack of clarity about the role of federal science-based departments, such as Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada. We believe that the lack of a clear process contributes to the unacceptably long timelines for both re-evaluations and special reviews of pesticides.
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.
3.144 Scientific research, monitoring and assessment, taken together, are the foundation for our understanding of these risks and for federal decision-making processes. Our audit focussed on selected aspects of the state of this foundation - the activities under way in federal departments to collect and use scientific information in deciding which toxic substances pose significant risks and therefore ought to be managed. We identified significant concerns about scientific capacity and decision-making processes.
3.145 Several federal departments conduct scientific research and monitoring of toxic substances. Each of these organizations has its own research emphasis and its own priorities, shaped in part by its mandate and by stakeholder interests. In many cases, departments are deeply divided on the risks posed by toxic substances and this has led to considerable conflict. The audit found weaknesses in the overall strategic management of the research agenda. To mobilize the collective expertise of federal departments, there is a need to improve interdepartmental co-operation in establishing government-wide, long-term priorities and in designing and implementing collaborative projects.
3.146 The audit also examined the implementation of selected assessment programs under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Pest Control Products Act . Risk assessments of priority substances, required under CEPA, have taken five years to complete and in some cases have been inconclusive. Plans for assessments of close to 23,000 other substances are in their formative stages. The audit also identified significant problems with the re-evaluation of existing pesticides under PCPA . The need for such re-evaluations has been formally recognized for over 13 years, yet insufficient action has been taken by successive regulatory agencies, including the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
3.147 We found significant weaknesses in the federal government's environmental monitoring. Such weaknesses impede the government's ability to detect the presence of toxic substances in our environment, to determine their effects on Canadians' health and on wildlife and ecosystems, and to measure the effectiveness of risk management initiatives. Despite long-standing recognition of the need for a robust monitoring program, and repeated commitments to establish one, existing monitoring networks have been in decline.
3.148 Federal resources dedicated to scientific research and monitoring have declined since 1994. These declines have affected research, monitoring and assessment activities for toxic substances. We identified specific examples of the impact of these reductions. There is a significant and growing gap between the demands placed on departments to provide and use scientific information and a federal infrastructure that is increasingly ill-equipped to do so. We were struck by the extent to which senior scientists from all departments consistently expressed deep concern about the government's declining ability to react to new demands and emerging issues and to undertake research for the public good.
3.149 We are concerned that scientific capacity in the federal government has been reduced to the extent that its capability to support informed decision-making and to deliver on core departmental mandates is threatened. We conclude that the federal government's ability to detect, understand and prevent the harmful effects of toxic substances on Canadians and their environment is seriously undermined.
A single, joint response to Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 was prepared by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada (including the Pest Management Regulatory Agency), Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada. The response is published at the end of Chapter 4.