Strengthening CEPA Implementation

Recommendations for Budget 2006

Recommendation Summary
Invest greater resources to effectively implement the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). CEPA is an important policy instrument that has been ineffectively implemented. Mounting exposure to toxic substances in our air and water is linked to serious threats to human health, especially for children. A Toxics Charge is a prime option for generating consistent funding for CEPA, and deserves a commitment from Environment Canada and Health Canada to build the necessary capacity.

Benefits for Canadians

  • Promote pollution prevention,
  • Contribute to human health protection and reduce public health costs,
  • Create employment in research, development and implementation of better emission control and best industrial practices, and
  • Lower the cost to government, communities, and industry of expensive cleanup and remediation, and of lost ecological services such as water quality.
Background and Rationale
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is not working. Despite the federal government’s commitment to safeguarding Canadians from toxics through pollution prevention, regulatory action has yet to be taken in connection with most substances declared toxic under CEPA.

The capacity of the federal government to deliver its toxic substance control mandate as required by law is in a deficit situation and continues to decline. Even if Environment Canada meets its deadline of fall 2006 to complete the first step in the risk assessment of existing toxic chemicals, there are no timelines, and no plan, subsequent to this date for those most toxic substances to be listed for virtual elimination under CEPA. Worse still, new chemicals are being introduced to the market on a constant basis. For most of these, testing to determine impacts on human health and the environment is non-existent or grossly inadequate.

In order for Canada to get off this “Toxics Treadmill”, the federal government urgently needs an enhanced capacity to measure, understand and take control of actions regarding the presence of toxic chemicals in the environment and in all phases of the life-cycle of consumer products. In accordance with worldwide trends in business and environmental management, the government needs to move its attention “up the pipe” and devote more resources to product life-cycle assessment and management approaches.

Canadian industry continues to generate enormous quantities of toxic substances as waste. Releases and transfers (not including recycling) of substances declared toxic for the purposes of CEPA and reported under the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) in 2002, include:

  • More than 45,766 tonnes of heavy metals;
  • 811,701 kilograms of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs);
  • 452,181 kilograms of hexachlorobenzene;
  • 263.226 g TEQ of dioxins and furans; and
  • 39,960 tonnes of CEPA toxic substances.

In addition, releases of criteria air contaminants, such as carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds have major impacts on the health of Canadians. Reported industrial releases of these substances under NPRI in 2002 included:

  • 953,721 tonnes of carbon monoxide;
  • 576,739 tonnes of nitrogen oxides;
  • 61,150 tonnes of PM2.5;
  • 108,889 tonnes of PM10;
  • 1,978,934 tonnes of sulphur dioxide;
  • 227,900 tonnes of total particulate matter; and
  • 267,553 tonnes of volatile organic compounds.

Mining operations are not required to report releases and transfers of toxic substances under the NPRI. As a result, releases and transfers of CEPA toxic substances from mining operations are not included in these estimates. The exemptions from reporting for the coal and metal mining sectors were lifted from the US Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) beginning in 1998. As a result, the metal mining sector in the US emerged as the largest source of total on- and off-site disposal and other releases of TRI substances, constituting 27 per cent of all releases reported to the TRI in 2002.

Pollution Charges in Other Jurisdictions
Other countries have successfully used pollution tax measures to reduce toxic emissions. For instance, the US Superfund Polluter Pays Taxes included:A

  • crude oil tax (9.7 cents per barrel tax on purchase);
  • A chemical feedstock tax on the purchase of 42 toxic chemicals ranging from $0.22 to $10.13 per ton;
  • A toxic chemicals importation tax on the importation of 113 dangerous products made from chemicals covered by the feedstock tax; and
  • A corporate environmental income tax on the profits of large corporations (rate of 0.12 per cent on taxable profits in excess of $2 million; $12 per $10,000).

In addition, many U.S. states, including Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island now tax various toxic substances to fund pollution prevention programs and the remediation of contaminated sites.

Recommendation
Increased resources should be directed to the following activities:

  • Program administration/enforcement,
  • Implementation of CEPA, in particular CEPA Part V, including the Domestic Substances List screening process for Persistence, Bioaccumulation and Toxicity characteristics and subsequent toxic substance management measures,
  • Measuring, monitoring and understanding the presence of toxics in our environment, and
  • Pollution Prevention Research Fund with a focus on product life cycle.

The government should also review and remove the exemptions for the mining sector from reporting to the National Pollutant Release Inventory. Given the scale of the potential contributions to releases and transfers of hazardous pollutants, criteria air contaminants and greenhouse gases, the exemption for the mining sector constitutes a major gap in the NPRI reporting structure - particularly with respect to on-site land releases, which may ultimately result in water pollution.

Options for a Toxics Charge for Canada
Canada could establish a toxics charge on the release and transfer of toxic pollutants designated under CEPA. Such a charge should also be applied to criteria air contaminants that have been added to the CEPA list of toxic substances, including nitrogen oxides, PM2.5 and PM10, and volatile organic compounds, and be weighted based on the level of toxicity for each substance.

This charge would create an incentive to reduce the use, generation and release of the specific pollutants. The net result would be a constant incentive for pollution prevention on a much wider basis than the federal government’s current regulation. A comprehensive toxics charge would also avoid situations where targeted chemicals are replaced by more damaging ones not subject to a charge.

Alternative and Complementary Policies
The government needs to enhance its capacity to regulate where appropriate and to take complementary action where other non-regulatory approaches are warranted. The federal government maintains that it is committed to safeguarding Canadians from toxics through pollution prevention. However, regulatory action has yet to be taken in connection with most substances declared toxic under CEPA.

Contact:
Rick Smith, Environmental Defence
416-323-9521 ext.225


top of page