September 18, 2006

Time for feds to take action: Environmental Defence

Kady O’Malley

The Hill Times

Environmental Defence’s executive director Rick Smith is a key player in the environmental world and he’s a mover and shaker to watch in this minority Conservative government.

The Conservatives are expected to release their own “made-in-Canada” environmental and climate change plan, but Mr. Smith said the jury is still out on whether his group has had any influence on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) Cabinet plan.

Who: Environmental Defence executive director Rick Smith.

Why: By highlighting the link between toxic pollution and human health, his organization seems to have found a receptive audience in the Conservative government, which is expected to bring forward its “made-in-Canada” alternative to Kyoto this fall. And it’s not just Conservatives who are paying attention: last spring, the group persuaded federal politicians from all parties, including Environment Minister Rona Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.), to roll up their sleeves and give blood samples, which will be tested for toxic chemicals.

In his own words about getting the message out to the public:

“We’ve had some impact with our recent campaigns. Our most recent reports showed that the levels of toxic chemicals in children are higher than in their parents, and that was a top story on all three national newscasts.

“A couple of weeks ago, most major environmental groups and industrial associations were brought in for a taste of what the new plan might look like. But whether it is sending our reports to the government, or, exchanging correspondence on pollution testing, or our other project with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, pollutionwatch.org, we’ve tried to make sure that the government notices that for many kinds of pollutants, the trends were negative—the levels are going up in many parts of the country, which goes to explain why there are increases in certain kinds of cancer, and why childhood asthma has been increasing.

“Frankly, Canada’s record on pollution reduction is now so miserably bad compared to the rest of the world, and much of that is due to many years of inaction on the part of the federal government, the need for action has become crystal clear. Whether it is increasing the number of smog days in cities around the country, or the increase in toxic chemicals that are banned in most other countries but continue to be marketed in Canada, the reality is that Canada’s record is more and more being shown up.

“We’re very glad that our latest approach seems to be resonating, and, we hope that it results in quick action from the federal government. There is clearly a public appetite to look at these issues, if only because other jurisdictions around the world are ahead of us. Surely we deserve the same level of protection as Bush is giving to Americans, and that Europeans enjoy.

“Our website, toxicnation.ca—the hits are just through the roof, and we’re hardpressed to keep up with calls that we get from Canadians wondering how they can be tested, or wanting detailed product information. Clearly, there’s obviously a huge interest out there in these issues that has so far outstripped any actions the government has taken to date.”

Kyoto and global warming:“It’s a mistake to see climate change as being irrelevant to people’s daily lives. There’s no question that many of the weird climatic events we’re seeing is a result of climate change, and scientists are getting more and more bold in linking climate change with a whole host of environmental mpacts, so it’s a mistake to see it as being somehow disconnected from people’s lives.”

The toxic test campaign: “We sent out letters to the various parties, and received responses very quickly. There’s a precedent for this— virtually every environment minister in the European Union has been tested, as have many celebrities. This kind of very personal pollution testing has been going on for a few years in the U.S. and Europe, and has dramatically altered the pollution debate from being about theoretical, arcane-sounding chemicals floating around out there, to what is in us and our kids. With what we’re starting to see in Canada, with opinionleaders agreeing to participate, and the initial signs and movement from the federal government, I’m hopeful that we’ll start to see the pollution debate changing here.”

What he hopes to see this fall: “This government promised, in its Throne Speech, ‘tangible pollution reduction.’ They didn’t couch that in terms of new money or a new process, and new programs, it promised the real beast: tangible reductions, so that’s what we’re expecting to see. That is the yardstick that the government has invited Canadians to apply: to measure its reductions in climate change gases, smog pollution and toxic pollutants, and we’re very interested to see what that looks like, hopeful that government will recognize that environment—has been busted out of its normally quite narrow public policy pigeon hole, and is very much an issue people related to on health, quality of life, community values—a real opportunity for any government to start to work with environmental policy.”

Advocate credibility, and the line between adviser and apologist: “I think that is absolutely something that organizations like ours have to avoid, and the way you avoid it is by being truthful in your assessment of policies. You put yourself in the mindset of being prepared to work with any and all governments that are interested in making progress on these issues. Over the last few years, we have both congratulated and castigated governments of all political stripes, and that’s the way you need to operate to have credibility. Our role is being the truth tellers, but the basis of our credibility as an organization, and my credibility as an advocate is to tell the truth without any spin, and to be the organization that Canadians rely on to assess these different policies, and speak truth to power. That’s what we try to do.”

Is the government listening? “Though I would like to believe that’s the case, the jury is still out on that. The world may be different [this] week—we have yet to see whether what has influenced them.”