Virtual Hill Days call on federal government to keep its promise to strengthen toxics and pollution law

Environmental, health and clean cosmetics groups ask for immediate reform to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act

OTTAWA – Parliament must prioritize reform of the outdated Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), says a coalition of environmental, physicians, women’s health and clean cosmetics advocacy groups. The groups are organizing Virtual Days on the Hill for a Toxic-Free and Healthy Environment this week. Hundreds of concerned citizens are joining forces to call on the federal government to fulfil its promise to reform the country’s two-decade old pollution prevention and toxic chemicals law.

For many years, Canadians have demanded meaningful government action to protect vulnerable and marginalized communities from toxic exposures, ban chemicals that cause cancer and hormone disruption, recognize our right to a healthy environment, and require better disclosure of hidden toxics in cosmetic fragrances and other products.

The government’s election platform and recent throne speech included a commitment to modernize CEPA, but without any clear timeline. CEPA modernization was one of two environmental legislative priorities highlighted in the Speech from the Throne.

In 2017, following extensive hearings, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made 87 recommendations for strengthening CEPA. During the “Virtual Days on the Hill,” groups are urging the federal government to implement these recommendations without further delay.

A House of Commons Petition to strengthen CEPA, signed by more than 8,000 Canadians, was submitted last week. The government must respond within 45 days.

Quotes from groups:

Gregg Renfrew, Founder and CEO, Beautycounter:

“Today’s consumers demand safer products and they deserve them. While companies like Beautycounter are meeting this demand, we cannot change the industry alone. Parliament must act quickly to introduce CEPA reform and ensure businesses like ours can thrive while protecting the health of consumers and the environment.”

Jennifer Beeman, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Action Quebec:

“There is no longer any doubt that toxic chemicals, including endocrine disruptors, are causing breast cancer. They are also responsible for a myriad of other growing health problems including neurological and reproductive disorders. Women, particularly those in vulnerable populations, bear a far greater burden of chemical exposures as well as being put in the impossible position of trying to protect themselves and their families from exposure to toxic chemicals. This government must undertake a serious reform of CEPA if they are to live up to the feminist principles they claim to hold.”

Dr. Samantha Green, Family physician at St. Michael’s Hospital and Inner City Health Associates in Toronto and Board Member of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment:

“Exposure to toxics is connected to chronic health conditions including heart disease, diabetes, and respiratory illnesses – and people living in poverty, like many of my patients, often have the highest toxic exposure. CEPA reform is urgently needed to ensure the health of my patients, especially in this moment when COVID-19 is taking such a toll on people whose health is already compromised.”

Joseph Castrilli, Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association:

“Hazardous substances pose a greater risk to vulnerable populations including people of low income, workers, racialized groups, Indigenous communities, women and children. They deserve to be better protected through a stronger environmental health law. This can happen if the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is strengthened towards greater focus on prevention using safe substitutes and creating new obligations for environmental rights. CEPA was last amended over 20 years ago and is overdue for reform. Evidence of environmental harm from hazardous substances shows its necessary for changes to CEPA.”

Lisa Gue, Senior Researcher and Analyst, David Suzuki Foundation:

“The Canadian Environmental Protection Act will set the parameters for a green recovery from COVID-19, so action to strengthen it must not be delayed. CEPA provides the legislative framework for federal action on greenhouse gases, plastics, industrial emissions and more. Integrating a human rights perspective – the right to a healthy environment – will ensure that all people in Canada benefit from environmental protections.”

Dr. Elaine MacDonald, Healthy Communities Program Director, Ecojustice:

“CEPA is Canada’s cornerstone environmental law, but it is out of date and failing to adequately protect Canadians from 21st-century pollution and toxic chemicals. Good laws protect the health and wellbeing of all Canadians, and it is the role of elected officials to make sure that these laws work. While Canada continues to battle the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever that CEPA is modernized to protect public health from dangerous pollution and harmful substances.”

Muhannad Malas, Toxics Program Manager, Environmental Defence:

“Reforming CEPA is not only an important step in reducing the burden of chronic illnesses, it’s also a fundamental step in tackling environmental and racial injustice when it comes to exposure to pollution. The federal government must move quickly to introduce a bill that will meaningfully protect vulnerable and marginalized communities from toxic chemicals in our air, water and consumer products.”

Melanie Langille, Director of Program Development (Environmental Health), Foundation for Resilient Health:

“It is essential for the health of Canadians that we have a modernized CEPA that explicitly protects the most vulnerable from toxic exposures. Most concerning are those toxins that cause illnesses in children even at low doses. The new CEPA must also recognize the importance of increasing protection for Canada’s natural habitats so as to provide a richly biodiverse environment. This is essential for increasing the resiliency of Canadians for generations to come.”

Mark Butler, Senior Advisor, Nature Canada:

“The federal government is considering only minor or housekeeping changes to Part 6 of CEPA which regulates genetically engineered animals. Housekeeping is not what is required in the face of major developments in genetic engineering and the risk these new technologies have for nature and Indigenous Peoples’ rights.”

Cassie Barker, Executive Director, Women’s Healthy Environments Network:

“Canadians have waited long enough for this government’s promises on toxics to be turned into real, progressive action – and the timing could not be more urgent, with the links between air pollution, lung health and COVID-19 rates. We look forward to a stronger CEPA that holds companies accountable for safer cosmetics and consumer products, and healthier communities.”

– 30 –

Statement from:

BEAUTYCOUNTER, BREAST CANCER ACTION QUEBEC, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION, DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION, ECOJUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, FOUNDATION FOR RESILIENT HEALTH, NATURE CANADA AND WOMEN’S HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS NETWORK

For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

Sarah Jamal, Environmental Defence, sjamal@environmentaldefence.ca, 905-921-7786
Anjali Helferty, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Anjali@cape.ca
Brendan Glauser, David Suzuki Foundation, bGlauser@davidsuzuki.org, 604-356-8829
Sean O’Shea, Ecojustice, soshea@ecojustice.ca, 1-800-926-7744 ext. 277

Happy World Environment Day!

Happy World Environment Day! The planet needs us to show up, participate, and work hard together to make change happen.

Here's what we're following:

  • Yesterday marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests. It's a good time to reflect on our right to protest; it is one we should exercise often. Remember those who stand up to tyrants.

  • The kids are doing alright - we're loving Greta Thunberg's movement of Friday school strikes for climate action. When progress is threatened - our health, education, Indigenous peoples, climate - we must show up and protect communities and our future.

  • This week, the final report and the 231 Calls for Justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls was released. As we head into a federal election, it's also good to remember our power to push those seeking our votes to commit to ending gender-based violence, colonialism and racism in our governance systems, and centre the knowledge and insights of Indigenous women and girls in our policies and decisions.

  • Last week the Ford government felt the massive public pressure and reversed its cuts to Ontario's municipalities, public health and child care. In this daily onslaught of cynical and scary news, it's important to connect to these stories of resistance and impact.

As for WHEN, here are a few ways you have helped to create change so far in 2019:

Toxic Beauty advocacy: we are so proud to be an advocacy partner of the documentary Toxic Beauty, which premiered this spring to sold-out audiences in Toronto and Vancouver, and help channel these audiences towards action and seek a ban on talc-based personal care products. If you haven't signed on to our call to get ovarian cancer-linked talc out of our personal care products you can send a letter here: https://www.bantalc.com/

Great Lakes Protection: We participated in the bi-national Great Lakes Summit, to provide feedback on recommendations to the Canadian government. WHEN continues to engage on water issues with our Great Lakes Protection Alliance partners, to support stronger protections for watersheds, communities and aquatic ecosystems.

Environmental Rights: WHEN, along with our co-hosts Ecojustice and the David Suzuki Foundation, held a symposium on environmental rights with a broad range of community organizations, and welcomed the insights of Maude Barlow, Dianne Saxe, Aamjiwnaang First Nation youth Vanessa Gray and Beze Gray, David Boyd and Olivia Chow during the panel discussion. You can find a local group working on environmental rights at http://bluedot.ca/

Green New Deal for Canada: WHEN has endorsed the Green New Deal for Canada, joined the massive coalition of organizations working to bring it to Canada, and hosted a town hall discussion for 150+ signatories at our office space. You can join the 50,000 people who have signed on: https://greennewdealcanada.ca/

Election toolkit: A shout-out to our colleagues at Breast Cancer Action Quebec for this great Election Toolkit, for individuals and groups to help shape the conversation this election on toxics laws in Canada: http://acsqc.ca/sites/default/files/bcaq-activism_toolkit2019w.pdf

Representing women and environmental health: We were delegates to the Chemicals Management Plan meetings in Ottawa last week, and we also met with the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights and Toxics ahead of their report release this Friday.

Phew!

(Also, if you want to celebrate World Environment Day and help WHEN win $10,000, every dollar you give in June during the Canadian Giving Challenge puts us in the running: https://www.womenshealthyenvironments.ca/give)

Toxics in Recycled Plastics

WHEN stands with our colleagues at HEJSupport, IPEN, CELA and Arnika in seeking action on contaminated recycled plastics in Canadian toys and products.

From the joint press release:

“A recent analysis of consumer products sold in Canada made from recycled plastics has revealed toxic flame-retardant contamination in some hair accessories, children’s toys, and other plastic products. Canada is one of the few countries that registered a recycling exemption for toxic polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) persistent organic pollutants (POP) after they were banned under the Stockholm Convention in 2004 (7 out of 182 Parties registered these exemptions). The exemption has permitted to recycle materials such as plastics from discarded computers and other products containing PBDEs in the recycling stream for the past ten years and to continue this practice until 2030. Environmental health organizations are urging the Canadian government to end the practice and withdraw the recycling exemptions because the resulting contamination of the recycling stream allows banned chemicals in products and poses a threat to public health, particularly children.”

“Canadian consumers should be able to purchase products made of recycled materials without having to worry that they contain substances that are globally banned. This is not the case at the present time,” said Olga Speranskaya, HEJSupport Co-Director and IPEN Senior Advisor. “We hope that Canada will announce its withdrawal of the recycling exemptions for PBDEs at UN Stockholm Convention meeting in Geneva (April 27-May 10).”

Ontario's aggregates: social licence and healthy communities

The Ontario government is soliciting feedback on the aggregates industry.

You can also provide feedback - the survey link is here, comments are open until May 1, 2019: https://www.ontario.ca/form/ontarios-aggregate-reform

We submitted the following comments (feel free to use and adapt them):

What is the greatest challenge facing aggregate resource management in Ontario today and in the future?

Open-pit mining and the aggregate extraction are highly unpopular due to the loss of prime farmland; truck traffic, dust and negative property value impacts; risks and damages to groundwater, and air quality issues such as dust; and massive abandoned and unrehabilitated site issues.

This largely self-regulated industry seeks to expand in Southern Ontario's most population growth-heavy, ecologically sensitive headwaters such as the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment. Yet, in 2010, 42% of aggregate sites were not doing progressive rehabilitation, which undermines their temporary land-use designation.

What are the best opportunities for managing aggregates resources in Ontario in the next three to five years?

The provincial government can support the aggregate industry by providing innovation incentives to improve recycling rates for concrete, bricks, glass and other materials. The industry must also be incentivized to improve its progressive rehabilitation rates in order to create truly sustainable aggregate management, and to rebuild their social licence to operate in aggregate-adjacent communities and municipalities.

What are the main barriers to achieve those opportunities?

Given that the industry has achieved only a 7% recycling rate, barriers include the sourcing and classification of materials that can meet the construction industry's demand - the province can support this sourcing and materials classification system.

In addition, a corporate culture of externalizing drinking water risks and rehabilitation costs on to small, rural municipalities poses a significant barrier to sustainability, and requires the province to challenge bad corporate actors while they are still in business.

How can the provincial government support Ontario’s aggregate resource development in the future?

The provincial government can define sustainable aggregate management to include protecting deposits for future use, and addressing the industry's land-use and climate impacts.

How can Ontario manage aggregate resources more competitively?

Level the playing field for good corporate citizens - the ones that undertake progressive rehabilitation, protect communities from air and water quality risks and exposures, and respect local infrastructure (roads, windrows, etc.) - and take action against those that threaten the aggregate industry's social licence before they are able to abandon sites for small rural municipalities to have to deal with.

Do you have any suggestions to help Ontario manage aggregates with regards to land use planning?

Enforcing the current requirements for progressive rehabilitation will help to rebuild the industry's social licence in conflict-laden aggregate-adjacent communities.

Acknowledgement: Thank you to Caitlin Port for her research on this issue, which formed the basis for these comments and references. https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/7966/Port_Caitlin.pdf

References:

Association of Manitoba Municipalities – Municipal Leader Magazine (2006). A primer on the aggregate industry, Summer 2006 edition. http://www.amm.mb.ca/PDF/Magazine/Summer2006/aggregate.pdf

Baker, D., Slanz, C., & Summerville, T. (2001). An evolving policy network in action: The case of construction aggregate policy in Ontario. Canadian Public Administration, 44(4), 463-483.

Binstock, M. & Carter-Whitney, M (2011). Aggregate Extraction in Ontario: A Strategy for theFuture. Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy http://cielap.org/pdf/AggregatesStrategyExecSumm.pdf

Caldwell, W & Hilts, S. (2005). Farmland preservation: innovative approaches in Ontario. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 60(3), 66-69

Chambers, C., & Sandberg, L. A. (2007). Pits, peripheralization and the politics of scale: Struggles over locating extractive industries in the town of Caledon, Ontario, Canada. Regional Studies, 41(3), 327-338.

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (2011). Land-Use Planning in Ontario. Recommendations of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario from 2000-2010

Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. A., & Thornton, D. (2004). Social license and environmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law & Social Inquiry, 29(2), 307-341.

Markvart, T (2009). Understanding Institutional Change and Resistance to Change Towards Sustainability: An Interdisciplinary Theoretical Framework and Illustrative Application to Provincial-Municipal Aggregates Policy. http://www.env.uwaterloo.ca/research/biosphere/Documents/Markvart_Tanya.pdf

Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (2006). Places to Grow: Better choices, Brighter Future. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. https://www.placestogrow.ca/images/pdfs/FPLAN-ENG-WEB-ALL.pdf

Ministry of Natural Resources. (2010b). State of the Aggregate Resource in Ontario Study: Consolidated Report. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Aggregates/2ColumnSubPage/286708.html

Ministry of Natural Resources (2010c). State of the Aggregate Resources in Ontario Study, Paper #6: Rehabilitation. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Aggregates/Publication/STDPROD_067784.html

Patano, S., & Sandberg, L. A. (2005). Winning back more than words? power, discourse and quarrying on the Niagara escarpment. Canadian Geographer, 49(1), 25-41.

Ontario Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association (2010). Study of Aggregate Rehabilitation in Ontario, 1971-2009, Part 1.

West, T. & Cho, K. (2006). Environmental and social issues associated with aggregate extraction: The Lafayette – West Lafayette, Indiana, and other examples, USA. Paper number 692 from the 10th Congress of the International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment. http://www.iaeg.info/iaeg2006/PAPERS/IAEG_692.PDF

Wernstedt, K. (2000). Plans, planners, and aggregates mining. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(1), 77-87.

Winfield, M.S. & Taylor, A. (2005). Rebalancing the Load; The need for an aggregates conservation strategy for Ontario. The Pembina Institute. http://www.pembina.org/pub/179