Environment Committee on Sept. 21st, 2006

[Paul Glover, Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Department of Health]

Thank you very much.

As I think was discussed this morning, the issue of context is particularly important.

We were talking about the issue of context which is essential to develop an action plan dealing with a specific problem.

So the issue here is context. As we heard in the discussions earlier this morning, with the example of ammonia and other substances, it's important that as we look at them, as we evaluate them and make risk-based decisions, we respond in an appropriate manner. I think the issue here is are there particular actions that are contributing to a particular problem, and are we sure that we have the right regulatory actions in response to that?

Without question, if there are specific uses leading to specific problems, that's where our scientists will find that out and provide us with the information we need to allow us to regulate appropriately and not generalize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Very briefly, Mr. Lussier.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

My second question is for Mr. Lloyd and relates to harmful substances in consumer products. I am particularly concerned by imported fabric and clothing containing all manner of new and unknown substances such as a stain repellents, antistatic substances, crease-proof substances or drypressing products. You objective is to resolve the problems of 3000 substances by 2020.

Are those new products that are introduced in the consumer chain part of all those substances, and I have not even mentioned the dyes that are added to candy?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I might just mention to Mr. Lloyd that someone else is taking this room at eleven o'clock. The consumer association will be before us on Tuesday, and they might be better able to answer that question about new consumer goods.

Do you want to wait until then, Mr. Lussier?

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Very good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll go to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

The 1,700 chemicals that were coming under the Food and Drugs Act, they're not mentioned. There was supposed to be 23,000, plus the 1,700 referred to at various points.

I'm wondering if Mr. Glover can comment.

[Paul Glover]

Thank you very much for that question.

CEPA covers a range of substances. We've been talking today about the domestic substance list, and that's the categorization of 23,000. CEPA also deals with new substances. Every year, both departments take a look at approximately 800 that come forward.

We also work with other pieces of legislation, such as the Food and Drugs Act and the Pest Control Products Act. Some of these substances have multiple uses, in food additives and other things. There is a link between those, and there is a requirement for the acts to work cooperatively. It is not part of categorization, and not part of the domestic substance list, but there is work done with the FDA substances.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

More out of curiosity, I'm looking at the Commissioner of the Environment's report in 2002, where she describes a number of concerns and problems over the listing process. In her description, she notes that there are likely to be the exact number of substances listed as have been declared listed as of two weeks ago. It seems somehow strange that there could be so much accuracy four years ago as to the number of total substances listed, yet it took us four more years to actually list them.

This shows that a deadline is so important in what the committee is considering next for government action. If the intention of this entire process has been the actual removal of these substances from our environment, and the government goes ahead with the plans that are coming forthwith without deadlines, this is merely an exercise in futility and public appearances.

I have a question about international ranking in the OECD. I think Mr. Khatter or Mr. Freeman talked about the evidence of us not being world leaders in terms of the mitigation of substances. What evidence is there for that?

[Aaron Freeman]

I'm sorry, evidence of...?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

A comment was made that Canada is not a world leader; we've become a world leader in potentially listing these substances and determining which ones are which, but we're not a world leader in terms of actually removing them from our environment.

[Hugh Benevides]

Perhaps it was my comment that the admittedly large task of categorizing was just the first step. So being a world leader in that early step is not enough, frankly, because it's not completing the process.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is there some country doing a better job of controlling substances--particularly toxic substances--than Canada right now?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

Mr. Cullen, I think at one point you referred to a report comparing the OECD countries in terms of emissions, and Canada ranked near the bottom on most things.

Besides that, we see that Europe is dealing with a variety of toxic substances, including those in cosmetics, and substances like phthalates. They're doing the regulation and we're kind of saying, “We don't have to do the regulation now because the companies will eventually take them out of our products voluntarily because Europe has dealt with them.”

I think we're seeing this trend over and over. We're way behind, and they're doing the work for us. We're saying, “We really don't have to do it now. Because of the harmonization of markets, companies are going to phase this stuff out anyway.” I think that's a repeated pattern that isn't promising.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Ms. de Leon.

[Fe de Leon]

I would just add that if you look at the European proposals around REACH, there's a possibility that they can deal with those types of issues much more quickly. We hate to think that the categorization exercise would fall behind. We should be able to at least put some effort forward to deal with those gaps in our approaches, especially around toxins in consumer products.

I also urge that effort be expended on looking at safe alternatives to these chemicals. That hasn't happened. Certainly we've raised the issue with regard to the categorization decisions. Where in the process does that discussion start to happen?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Freeman.

[Aaron Freeman]

Sorry to extend the PollutionWatch road show here, but according to a recent study of OECD countries, Canada ranks 29th out of 29 industrialized countries in releases of volatile organic compounds; 27th out of 28 in sulphur oxides; 26th out of 28 in nitrogen oxides; 28th out of 28 in carbon monoxide; 12th out of 14 in ozone-depleting substances; and 27th out of 29 in greenhouse gases.

When we look at our largest trading partner, for example, around the Great Lakes, we see that Canadian facilities around the Great Lakes are actually emitting 93% more air pollutants than their U.S. counterparts.

We are falling behind virtually any way you look at it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

It is sometimes easy to broaden the debate but I believe the first topic of discussion was the use of the term « toxic ». We have different opinions and nobody gives it the same meaning. We cannot come to a conclusion, and it's even worse when one considers that the word may not have the same meaning in French and English, Spanish or Chinese, since we're talking about exports.

Would you have a problem, Mr. Freeman, with using a definition instead of a single word?

[Aaron Freeman]

I'm sorry.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

If we were to use a definition instead of the term « toxic », would that be a problem, do you believe? I am thinking of the definition in section 64 indicating what toxicity is.

[Aaron Freeman]

I'm definitely not an expert in the French language. I believe the meanings are comparable or similar.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

If we use the word “toxic”, it could be different in French. It could be different in English, or in any other language. When we export, if we put “toxic” on the box that doesn't mean the same thing in England or Germany.

If we use the definition in section 64, as we talked about a few minutes ago, is it acceptable to you?

[Aaron Freeman]

Do you have an answer?