Environment committee  Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between trade secrets and health and safety data. The world is moving towards recognizing that difference. CEPA does a terrible job of making health and safety data public and transparent. As REACH is coming, if we're going to be sharing information, we need to be harmonized with other jurisdictions in terms of how we deal with health and safety data.

Environment committee  I think we'd be very happy to have the idea that the burden of proof is on industry established in CEPA. I think the reality right now for existing substances is that it's not. And it really is a reasonable person test. I think if the Canadian public, when they bought a product, could ask the manufacturer whether the product, including all the substances and chemicals in it, was safe enough for them if they used it as directed, they would expect the answer to be yes.

Environment committee  I'll try to answer that question. We've spoken a little bit about toxic before, in terms of.... I think the question is making reference to the Hydro-Québec case in particular, and to other cases where the question whether CEPA was constitutional in terms of its federal authority to deal with these substances hinged, partially at least, if not fully, on the criminal law idea that these substances were toxic and harmful.

Environment committee  What we need to remember in terms of timelines is that the new European legislation, REACH, is not just coming but is basically here. The vote is on December 12. Everyone anticipates that it will be passed and that implementation will start in the new year. What it will mean is that for the highest-volume substances, within three years we'll have data sets for all of them.

Environment committee  Thanks very much for the question. It's a difficult answer to a lot of questions around the rising rates of cancer and other diseases, in that we often don't know. That's particularly the reason why we have sessions like this, where we talk about the need for information. When we have such a large number of substances that have been grandfathered and are on the market without any data or evidence of either their safety or their harm, we simply can't answer the question as to whether those substances are part of the problem or not.

Environment committee  Mr. Chair, is it okay if I take more of Mr. Godfrey's time on this?

Environment committee  At some point I would like to be able to do the international comparison, but I'll just do the domestic comparison to the Pest Control Products Act. What we have in terms of comparing the existing substances to the new substances is that the Pest Control Products Act requires quite a bit more information, requires testing data on every substance, every pesticide on the market.

Environment committee  It's a difficult question and it has to be looked at in two different ways. There's a double edge to it. On the one hand, the availability of alternatives should allow us to move more quickly to get rid of substances we don't need to use. On the other hand, we can't be stuck in a place where, if there is no alternative, we can't do anything at all.

Environment committee  If we go through this discussion, we will probably come to a consensus that the idea of chasing down the last molecule, of working too hard at trying to find levels of quantification, is bogging us down, and that we need to streamline virtual elimination. I'm not clear on how the wording in the Stockholm Convention would transfer to CEPA, but we ought to make it clear in the act that we aren't worried about every last molecule.

Environment committee  Yes. We haven't had a problem with this part of the Stockholm Convention. I've seen the language the CCPA has offered to CEPA. It's not clear to me whether it's an accurate transition. They propose that the quantities of the substance would not be under schedule 1—I can't give the exact wording.

Environment committee  I would like to give you some examples. If you think about air emissions in Canada or air standards, air quality in terms of air pollution, if you look at the EU, if you look at Australia, if you look at the United States, Canada is the only country that has guidelines rather than standards.

Environment committee  One of the keys in deciding what a release limit should be--and Mr. Benevides mentioned this--is to make sure the decision is first based on science. We need to look at what the health effects and environmental impacts are in terms of a chemical or substance based on the research and to try to make our decision as closely linked to the science as possible.

Environment committee  I'm not sure what the present reality is. I think we're going to have to negotiate around REACH. I'm not an expert on TOSCA in the U.S., so I'm not sure whether the confidentiality issue is a barrier.

Environment committee  The new substances program is very fast, partly because Canada is harmonizing with other countries in respect of the data set that's required. Once a company has done that data set for another country, they will be able to submit their data set here and we will turn it around in 90 days.

Environment committee  We agree with other people on the panel who have talked about the need for enhanced sharing of information. In particular, with the REACH setup happening in Europe, Canada needs to ensure that we can get the information that companies will be submitting as part of this program, so we can use it in our assessments.