How well is federal legislation designed to protect the environment working? That was the question put to a Senate committee tasked with reviewing the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The answer – not very well – is evident throughout the committee’s recently released report, which pokes some rather large holes in the legislation, and points the way to a more effective system of protecting the country’s soil, lakes, rivers, and streams from industrial and landfill pollutants.

Summing up, the committee says the lack of will to implement and enforce the act, and a shortage of necessary resources to do so, are the weak links in the CEPA environmental protection regime. It makes 24 recommendations to government. Anna Tilman of Save the Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition admitted the act has some good clauses, but asserted “we have really lagged behind as a country in bringing in regulatory measures...” while Dr. Kapil Khatter of Pollution Watch noted CEPA “has not been effective in reducing pollution in Canada or in getting the worst chemicals off the market.” Former MP Charles Caccia said “[CEPA] is weak on anticipating and preventing, and also not very strong on reacting and curing.” The report focuses on two case studies, mercury and perfluori-nated compounds, to prove these points convincingly. Mercury, a naturally occurring element found in a wide range of consumer products including thermometers, barometers and electrical switches, is known to cause harm at every link in the food chain, from fish up to humans.The committee noted that while the act has succeeded in reducing mercury emissions by 90 percent between 1970 and 2003, it has failed to make full use of its regulatory authority, preferring instead to focus on pollution prevention plans, codes of practice and national standards. Several witnesses noted there are no consequences for provinces who fail to reach targets set out in the national standards, and the act does not even regulate mercury in thermometers, emissions from power plants, and disposal of mercury-containing waste products.

For example the public is largely unaware that compact fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury that should not be thrown out with household garbage, and instead should be collected separately and handled as hazardous waste. Withholding information and inefficient procedures were also cited by the committee as obstacles in achieving more effective environmental protection. For instance, it was noted that while CEPA allows the public to launch a civil suit against a polluter seen to be breaking the law, there has not been a single lawsuit launched under the act because citizens are not given access to information about emissions, which they need to prove there has been “significant harm to the environment.” One witness pointed to the fact that the act currently requires three trips to Cabinet before a potentially hazardous substance can be assessed and a management plan put in place. We can all do our part, as companies and citizens, to protect the environment, but it is the government’s job to put the necessary regulations in place to ensure we are doing, or not doing, what we should. We implore the federal government to act on the committee’s recommendations, to give the act the teeth it needs to be a more effective custodian of the environment.