Environment Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

But I don't get it. I'm just a consumer, and already I know from the hazardous products component that this is bad stuff if used incorrectly. Right? To have that reconfirmed in an act that I'm not going to read, as opposed to looking at it on a label that I am going to read.... I don't understand how these are gradations of stigmatization, which I think for the average customer.... Of course it's bad for you under certain conditions. The difference between calling it toxic in CEPA and having a skull and crossbones on the label is a refinement that surely the average person doesn't concern himself or herself with. They just know that you shouldn't do certain kinds of stuff with this product.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll hear from Mr. Teeter now.

[Michael Teeter]

I would just say that I do see a very strong difference between substances that are on the list that in effect can kill humans on contact, and those that are in the air we breathe or are in foods we eat. I think that's the way the public understands it. And I think we run the risk of trivializing the word itself if we don't keep it for those things that are truly toxic in the ordinary sense. So if it's arsenic, we understand it would be toxic; if it's ammonia in the air, maybe to help public understanding a different word would be better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Benevides, go ahead, very briefly, please.

[Hugh Benevides]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. Godfrey's point that the label “toxic” is consistent with the symbol on the label. I think what's important here is that there be a responsibility to communicate, where necessary, the meaning of that toxic designation. But let's remember about these gradations. The really important point here is whether and where some action is actually taken in response to the label of “toxic”. That, of course, goes through a further rigorous and lengthy process. But we'd like to see that happen sooner, and in many cases it'll be justified. Having the simple designation is certainly a lower gradation but, as we've heard, a necessary part of the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Lussier, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to come back to greenhouse gases. My question is addressed to Mr. Winfield or Mr. Bramley.

In your brief, you say that CEPA could be a vehicle through which the government could quickly introduce regulations. You mentioned that the large emitters are responsible for 50% of emissions.

Does that percentage include the oil companies? What are the five or eight priority regulations the government should tackle in order to address the greenhouse gas issue?

[Matthew Bramley]

Emissions in a number of sectors have grown more rapidly than overall emissions in Canada. Because the large industrial emitters are responsible for almost 50% of emissions, there is an urgent need to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, through regulation, for all heavy industry sectors, particularly electricity generation using fossil fuels, which accounts for almost 20% of our emissions in Canada. That should also be done for the oil industry, whose emissions also account for about 20% of total emissions, as well as for several other industries -- for example, the chemical and pulp and paper industries, and so on.

The previous government proposed regulating all the major industries through CEPA. The approach that was advocated involved a separate regulation for each industry sector. That would probably be easier. A so-called umbrella regulation would set the main parameters of such a system, while another would establish targets to be met in each sector. Emissions trading could also be used to meet targets.

We have to move forward quickly with this kind of system, so that Canada can honour its international obligations, notably under the Kyoto Protocol.

I would just like to mention, by way of conclusion, that the 25 member countries of the European Union have implemented such a system by means of a European directive. This system has been in operation since January 2005 and applies to some 12,000 industrial facilities.

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

What is the second area to target, after heavy industry? Are private vehicles an important area in terms of greenhouse gas emissions?

[Matthew Bramley]

In Canada, the other major source of emissions is road vehicles. Approximately 10% of emissions in Canada are produced by private vehicles, almost 8%, by industrial and commercial transportation, and some 10% by the agricultural industry.

As regards CEPA, the objective for the time being is to regulate emissions produced by the major industrial emitters. CEPA can also be used to regulate the energy efficiency of road vehicles. When a sector is responsible for 10% of total emissions, it should be considered a priority.

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

Thank you.

My second question is addressed to Ms. Coombs.

Domestic waste water contains a lot of discarded pharmaceuticals. Does your association have any recommendations to make with respect to the recovery of pharmaceuticals? Are pharmacists properly supervised in terms of controlling discarded, expired or used pharmaceuticals that are recovered by consumers?

[Shannon Coombs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. I will try to answer to the best of my abilities.

It is my understanding that there are provisions provided by some of the trade associations for pharmaceutical collection and that there are programs in place to do it. I'm also aware that Health Canada has undertaken some education programs with respect to advising consumers about not flushing their pills down the toilet but actually bringing them back to the pharmacies.

But I would refer to the Health Canada official to provide any kind of clarification on that, Mr. Ethier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Be very brief, Mr. Ethier, please.

[Charles Ethier]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Shannon.

Yes, one of the issues we are looking at in our program is best practices for recuperating some of these pharmaceuticals to prevent their getting into landfill and ultimately into our water supply. This is one of the practices for which we are continuously looking at other jurisdictions internationally to see what practices exist there that we might be able to import and implement here in Canada for better managing pharmaceutical products.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to turn to the in-commerce list. I have some questions on the 9,000 substances currently regulated under the Food and Drugs Act and the options on what to do with that.

This is perhaps more of a legal question, and I'm certainly not a lawyer. But is there an obligation created under section 73 to categorize these substances as either existing or new? In other words, are those the only two options we're dealing with? Is the government obliged to take that course of action or, for example, can they continue to exist being regulated under the Food and Drugs Act?

I'm trying to figure out what the full options are. I guess the specific question is this, and maybe it's a legal question. Is an obligation created to treat them as either existing or new and, from there, the government then has a certain defined course of action?

[Shannon Coombs]

Actually, Mr. Ethier could probably clarify it with respect to the legal obligation.

[Charles Ethier]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We need to be clear that the in-commerce list is purely an administrative list that we developed at Health Canada and Environment Canada to identify the substances that were in commerce from January 1, 1987, to September 2001. Those 9,000 substances do not currently meet the legal definition of an existing substance under the act. As such, they are considered to be new substances, although they have been in commerce for some 20 years.

The in-commerce list does not have any legal status under CEPA. One of the issues we're trying to grapple with is that we're facing the very daunting task right now of possibly having to conduct environmental assessments on all 9,000 substances, assuming that they are out of compliance with CEPA. We are more than willing to look at other mechanisms, working closely with industry and with Environment Canada, including the possibility of recognizing the in-commerce list as a legal instrument that would help us to more efficiently and more effectively manage those 9,000 substances.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

If I understand you correctly, there's no option to schedule these substances, and they all have to be treated as new substances. Is that what you're saying?

[Charles Ethier]

Currently they are all new substances under the act. That's right.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

They will therefore have to undergo the NSNR.

[Charles Ethier]

That's correct.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's the only option available.

[Charles Ethier]

That's correct.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That leads me to a question. I'll open this up to the panel.

These are substances that have been in use for quite a lengthy period of time. Is it fair to put a reverse onus on industry to demonstrate the risk rather than government scientists establishing what the risk is? Is this a fair way to treat these?