Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

IMPLEMENTING THE BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
Implementation

Stakeholders Forum
November 16-17, 1998 - Chicago, Illinois

Presentation
John Mills, Regional Director, Environment Canada

Good Morning

I am particularly pleased to be here today with Dave Ullrich in welcoming you to this Stakeholders Forum of the Binational Toxics Strategy. As one of the key partners in this strategy, Environment Canada is pleased to co-host this Forum with USEPA.

I want to take the opportunity to offer a few comments on the Strategy from a Canadian perspective.

We see the Strategy and the activities it is spawning as one of the key actions to clean up and protect the lakes. It ranks right up there in importance with Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans. Like our binational LaMPs and RAPs, we are fortunate that the Strategy continues our strong tradition of Canada - US cooperation.

We are proud of this cooperative heritage. Its application to addressing Great Lakes problems is acknowledged globally. The Binational Strategy builds on this cooperative effort and challenges us to strengthen it by engaging industries, communities and individuals to be full partners in reducing the priority toxic substances. While it is clear that governments will take a leadership role, it also clear that for the Strategy to be successful, it must have the support and active participation of all members of society.

The Binational Strategy is an instrument which builds on an array of existing programs and activities. It is designed to do so in realization that toxic contamination of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem is not just a regional problem. We know today that it is a problem which has local, regional, national, continental and global dimensions. To be effective,

the strategy must have linkages to activities at every scale. To that end, it is important to realize that, under this Strategy, linkages have been made with activities of the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation, and most particularly with its working groups on the reduction of PCBs, Mercury, Chlordane and DDT.

It is also worth noting that this year, Canada and the US, along with 160 other countries, participated in the first session of United Nations Negotiations for an International Convention on the Control of Persistent Organic Pollutants. It is no coincidence that their priority substances list mirrors the priority list of our Strategy. The aim of this negotiation is to have a legal binding convention by year 2000.

Many of you in this room know that it was the toxics research and monitoring work done under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in the 70s and 80s which alerted our nations to the toxics threat and promoted the development of federal, state and provincial programs in both countries. These programs will continue to grow and advance to address all aspects of the toxics problem.

Last year, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 11 of the substances that are on the Strategy substances lists were designated for virtual elimination nationally as we moved ahead to implement our national Toxic Substances Management Policy.

While some of these substances were previously banned or taken out of production, their designation under CEPA will ensure that their use will be permanently restricted or banned. This January, the Canadian Federal and Provincial Ministers of Environment signed an agreement to develop nation-wide standards for priority chemicals including Dioxins, Furans, and Mercury. In addition, they agreed to have action plans to achieve those standards in place by the year 2000. You’ll be hearing more on this initiative later this morning. Given that Great Lakes specific programs stimulated the development of new national toxics initiatives in the past, it is altogether appropriate that they benefit from these programs today.

At Environment Canada, we are anxious to move ahead in implementing the Strategy. I recognize that progress seems to be a little slow. I understand that it has taken some time to organize the work groups, to solicit participation and focus on a direction. I have asked that my staff work with EPA and stakeholders more closely to address specific concerns.

I understand that the substance specific Work Groups have been given clear direction and will be requested to post progress against milestones in their activities. Also, a more extended schedule of meetings and forums, over the next year, which will serve to regularize the implementation process will be announced. We need ways to improve our communication and I have specifically asked that our agencies look at ways of improving the use of the Internet in promoting the goals and results of this strategy. In doing all this we need your active and constructive participation.

We are blessed in the Great Lakes Basin with not only these magnificent lakes but with a large pool of active, talented and creative people. I am confident that we can meet our challenges but only if we have your full and constructive participation. Again thank you for coming and I wish you a productive meeting.