|
|
|
|
||
|
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT NO APRIL FOOL'S JOKE
(This editorial is from the April 16-30/2000 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)
WE COULD BE FORGIVEN for thinking that it was a bad April Fool's joke. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) came into effect on March 31, amid reports that Ottawa might allow the importation of toxic PCBs, the by-products of US military activities in Japan. This despite the CEPA being touted as increasing Canada's ability to control the influx of dangerous chemicals.
After the Chretien Cabinet reversed most of the amendments introduced by Liberal backbenchers, the new CEPA has at least four fundamental problems.
First, it severely limits the ability of the federal government to play a leading role in environmental management. There are at least fourteen different references to the federal government being required to meet with provinces prior to initiating policy.
Second, the new legislation is "residual," meaning that all other legislation has priority over environmental protection. Instead of placing a priority on these issues, the CEPA puts them at the bottom of list.
Third, the CEPA almost abandons the Precautionary Principle (that governments should act on the side of caution on environmental matters), by stating that industry need only take action on a problem when it is "cost-effective" to do so. In plain language, Ottawa cannot act to address an environmental problem until it demonstrates that it is cheaper for industry to fix the problem than to compensate the people harmed!
Fourth, the Cabinet now has the power to exempt classes of bio-engineered products from having the health or environmental impacts evaluated.
Labour and environmental organizations were upset that the Act does not provide "whistleblower protection." In the wake of scandals at the Ministries of Health and Fisheries, the public and scientists have repeatedly called for protection for workers who disclose potential environmental and health impacts of an industry.
Instead of placing environmental and public safety ahead of corporate profits, the Chretien Liberals have predictably chosen to support their rich friends.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
