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.
|