Health committee  Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to provide an overview of CCSPA's suggestions to improve Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. I have to say that it's a bit of a tongue twister for me, as our acronym is CCSPA.

Environment committee  I thought that in the categorization process, because it was science-based, there was science there that you had to make some determination that it met the criteria, which are persistent, bioaccumulative, inherently toxic, or there was potential for human exposure. So there is science to make a determination of the 23,000, and the result is we have 4,000 that require further assessment.

Environment committee  Yes, we're already doing it.

Environment committee  I think it's implicit in the act, because it's in the regulations.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. On your comments with respect to confidentiality, I think that in our brief we outlined what we felt were adequate provisions in CEPA. I know that the comparison was put forward with respect to the Pest Control Products Act and the differences in that. I think that information is available to people who request it; it's just a matter of how you go about it.

Environment committee  That was a very good answer.

Environment committee  It's an interesting argument, because I think we already have this reverse onus. Industry has to provide an information set, a data set, to the government to be reviewed. We are providing that data and that information and the test to support substances being new to the market and also being continued in the market.

Environment committee  Industry has been actively involved for the past six years, so there's been a cost not just to the government to undertake this initiative. There's also a cost to our member companies and other industry associations and their member companies as well, because we want to make sure that we have the appropriate people at the table and the appropriate scientists at the table, and that all of our members are engaged, because there has been an effort by all of our member companies and other association member companies to actively participate in that.

Environment committee  Thank you. As I stated in our opening remarks, first and foremost, our number one priority is the health and safety of Canadians in their environment. Our member companies provide products that are beneficial to consumers: soaps, detergents, ant traps, as well as disinfectants to clean table tops.

Environment committee  I'm sorry to cause alarm. My apologies. The statistic we have from the Cancer Society is that the new cases of cancer are primarily due to an increasing and aging population. The 43% of new cancer cases and 60% of deaths due to cancer occur among those, really, who are 70 years of age.

Environment committee  No, we wouldn't agree with that statement. As we mention in our brief, the new substances notification regulations provide a science-based, predictable, rigorous system for new substances being introduced into Canada. With respect to existing substances, the categorization process is leading the world in how existing substances are being assessed and managed.

Environment committee  I'll try to briefly answer your question. With respect to the cancer question you asked, I think it's important to recognize that our whole world is made up of chemicals. All the things we eat, we touch, and we breathe are chemicals, most of which are natural. For example, there are 17 carcinogens in a cup of coffee.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. The CSDSL program, as I commented in our opening remarks, is leading the world with how existing substances are being managed. It is our assertion that there needs to be a communication strategy to inform Canadians about the process the government undertook for the categorization process, the science behind that program, and the results of that program.

Environment committee  So is your argument that industry is not providing enough data for new substances and existing substances?

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. I was intrigued by some of the comments that were provided, because while we may have summarized that, yes, we are supportive of the status quo, we are supportive of a science-based, rigorous system when it comes to the new substance notification.