Back to index

Canadian Environmental Protection Act: Strengthening Implementation

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY:
Invest greater resources to 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 to simultaneously generate funding for CEPA implementation and deter the use, generation, and release of toxic substances.

Investment Required
$300 million annually, starting with $100 million the first year and increasing to $300 million by year three. A portion of these funds could be generated through a toxics charge.

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 lost ecological services such as water quality.

TOP

Background and Rationale
Canadians are exposed to toxic chemicals every day through air-, water- and land-based sources, and through food and commonly used consumer products. Yet Canada’s overarching pollution law, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is not working. Despite the Act’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.

As a result, Canada has been falling behind in taking action on pollution. According to a recent study of OECD countries, Canada ranks 29th out of 29 industrialized nations in releases of volatile organic compounds, 27th out of 28 in sulphur oxides, 26th out of 28 in nitrogen oxides, 28th out of 28 in carbon monoxide, 12th out of 14 in ozone-depleting substances, and 27th out of 29 in greenhouse gases. A recent comparison between Canadian and US industrial sites in the Great Lakes found that, per facility, Canadian sites emit 93% more potentially cancer-causing air pollutants and almost four times the pollutants that can cause reproductive or developmental harm.

The Ontario Medical Association conservatively estimates that two air pollutants, ground level ozone and fine particulate matter, are responsible for over 5,800 premature deaths in Ontario annually, as well as over 16,800 hospital admissions, nearly 60,000 emergency room visits and over 29 million minor illness days, costing Ontario almost $1 billion per year.

The four-fold increase in childhood asthma has led to corresponding economic and social costs. Asthma is the leading cause of child hospitalization and school absenteeism, and fully one-third of all health coverage expenses for children in Ontario go towards the treatment of asthma.

US research suggests that the prevention of pollution exposure could result in massive savings in health care, human productivity and social costs. One study estimated that $54.9 billion is spent annually on environmentally- induced disease in children in the US, including $9.2 billion for certain brain-based disorders (intellectual deficits/mental retardation, autism and cerebral palsy), $43.3 billion for lead poisoning, $0.3 billion for childhood cancer and $2 billion for childhood asthma. The study used conservative assumptions and excluded related costs to families or later complications of these health conditions.

While the Government’s recent Clean Air Act will eventually develop regulations for eight important air contaminants, this will not address the thousands of other substances that pose environmental and health risks. In this regard, 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. While Environment Canada and Health Canada have adhered to the statutory deadline to complete the categorization of existing toxic chemicals, there will need to be a serious commitment of resources to manage and eliminate the substances that have been deemed to be the most harmful.

In addition, we need to boost our capacity to monitor pollution. For example, under the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), mining operations are not required to report releases and transfers of toxic substances to tailings impoundments and water rock piles. 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.

TOP

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 US 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.

TOP

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 could 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.

The best candidates for a toxics charge would be those substances which have been deemed highest priority by the recently completed categorization process, but which cannot feasibly be immediately eliminated.

This charge would create an incentive to reduce the use, generation and release of the specific pollutants, and encourage companies to develop safer alternatives. 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 avoid situations where targeted chemicals are replaced by more damaging ones not subject to a charge.

TOP

Recommendation
The government should make a strong commitment to the effective implementation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. CEPA is an important policy whose potential to protect human and environmental health is being wasted, through an insufficient allocation of resources.

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.

A toxics charge is an excellent option to simultaneously generate funding for CEPA implementation and deter the use, generation, and release of toxic substances.

TOP

Alternative and Complementary Policies
Mandatory timelines should be announced and committed
to for the phase-out of the worst chemicals identified in the categorization process.

Consumer products should be explicitly brought under the purview of CEPA.

A new section of CEPA should deal with vulnerable ecosystems, such as the Great Lakes and the Arctic.

As the emerging European Union law (REACH) will require, the burden of proof should be on industry to demonstrate substances are safe, rather than the current requirement that places the burden on government to show a chemical is dangerous before it can take protective action.

The NPRI should be expanded to cover a wider range of pollution, including releases and transfers of toxic substances to tailings impoundments and water rock piles.

Contact:
Aaron Freeman
Environmental Defence
613-564-0007

TOP