Toxics, terrorism and the Kyoto way
By Don Mackay
Friday, September 27, 2002

Canadians face two compelling environmental issues: the local problem of individual exposure to "toxic" substances which can impair health and even life expectancy, and the global problem of climate change caused by "greenhouse" gases. There are signs that in the coming year as Jean Chretien shapes his legacy, environmental issues may finally appear on the Ottawa radar screen. Certainly the recent announcements on the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases are an encouraging, if somewhat ambiguous, start. The next year will be critical. Issues which do not attract action in the 17 months ahead are likely to be neglected for many years to come as a new regime takes over on Parliament Hill. Policies on toxics are particularly vulnerable and present prospects are very uncertain, despite some recent successes.

For example, in March a group of 300 scientists from governments, universities and industry, including many students, met in Ottawa for a four-day review of the findings of the Toxic Substances Research Initiative (TSRI). This three-year, $40-million program directed jointly by Health Canada and Environment Canada has generated a mountain of data on the sources and behaviour of toxic substances in the Canadian environment and their actual and possible effects.

The Initiative had obviously been an outstanding success. There is now a clearer picture of toxics in Canada, where they come from (often south of the border), where they go and how they affect organisms ranging from frogs to killer whales and human sperm counts. Now that the impacts are better appreciated the corresponding regulatory measures to control toxic chemicals should be apparent using instruments such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, provincial and municipal regulations.

In contrast to the extensive and well coordinated research programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, there is no established environmental research program supported by Environment Canada and Health Canada that is directed towards satisfying their knowledge needs. There is no Canadian program of research support for the Great Lakes or rivers such as the Otonabee or St. Lawrence. The TSRI Program was a start in this direction.

Over a year ago, a cabinet submission was prepared for renewal of the initiative. The aim was to maintain the momentum gained in TSRI I and expand it into an ongoing program in TSRI II.

Then came Sept. 11. Ottawa became totally preoccupied with fighting terrorism, buying anthrax vaccines and sending troops to Afghanistan. Priorities were further clouded by doubts about the Kyoto Agreement, questionable distinctly non-toxic research done by co-operative ad agencies and internal squabbling over party leadership. TSRI II apparently died of neglect. Hard-won collaborations are decaying and we risk slipping back to the old chaos of fragmented and ad hoc toxics research.

The bitter irony is the recent announcement of an anti-terrorism Canadian Research and Technology Initiative (CRTI) which appears to be modelled on the TSRI program but will involve $170 million over five years. The aim is to improve Canada‚s ability to respond to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents as part of the National Security Agenda. The program has been patched together rapidly. The bureaucracy can move with remarkable speed when so directed from on high. The announcement was made on May 10 and initial proposals were required by May 31. Projects are starting this month. Clearly the aim is to spend large quantities of research funds as fast as possible with relatively little reflection on what is really needed and who can do it most effectively.

Canadians can be excused for questioning decision-making in a federal government which will cancel toxic chemical research and then spend over four times as much on dubious anti-terrorism research. This is not to minimize the threat or impacts of terrorism. Tragically, Canadians did die on Sept. 11, in Afghanistan and in the 1985 Air India incident, but it is questionable if the new program can prevent repetition of similar tragedies. Security is already tight at airports, border crossings and other sites vulnerable to terrorist attack. All 30 million Canadians are exposed daily to toxic chemicals and many are deeply concerned about their effects on their health. Surely the risk experienced by the average Canadian of lung disease from air pollutants, illness from contaminated water and death from preventable diseases such as cancer must greatly exceed the risk from terrorism? It appears, however, that Ottawa's policies are directed to appease the government/industry defence establishments in Canada and the U.S. and to satisfy perceived risks rather than address the very real risks from toxic chemicals which daily face the Canadian public.

If Prime Minister Chretien can ensure ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and establish a purposeful program to address the toxics issue he will leave a legacy in which he and all Canadians can take pride for decades to come. It will be an interesting 17 months!

Don Mackay is Professor Emeritus in Trent University's Environmental Studies department.