Environment Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

How do we expedite the assessment of the substances so we can get them on track within the timelines you've proposed?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

Sorry, I'm still not clear on that question.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

We're talking about certain proposals you've put forward for the decision-making process. I want to make sure there is a way to facilitate that, to expedite things. We talked about political will. We talked about the fact that we need to get the government to put their resources in. So I guess resources would be one way of expediting that. Do you see anything else that could, in fact, expedite it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Answer very briefly.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

As you've said, resources are important. Some of the things Mr. Teeter said about looking into management while we're looking to assessment will help to expedite things, as well as concrete timelines on industry submitting data so we have the tools in place.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the impression today that our witnesses have confronted us with two distinct visions and approaches.

First of all, Mr. Soule, in your document, regarding the assessment program flowing from the categorization process, you say, and I quote:

If a deadline is felt to be needed, nothing earlier than 2020 should be considered, and this should be a goal, not a requirement.

I can certainly say that you are not being particular about details. I do not know if this is what you are saying this morning, but it seems to me that the categorization experience, where timelines and deadlines were set at seven years, has enabled us to ensure that we meet our goals and get results. And if we had met our goals, it is precisely because there was a condition, a seven-year deadline.

So, don't you think that the categorization process should guide us in the important task of setting very strict deadlines, all, of course, in the name of the precautionary principle? It seems to me that the one thing people in industry hate, and one to avoid, is uncertainty.

Does the absence of a deadline and the fact that a goal is not being set — and I am choosing to use the world goal, not condition — before 2020 not create uncertainty for your industry? That is undoubtedly not good for the people of Quebec and Canada, or for industries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Soule.

[Jack Soule]

Thank you for the question.

I concur with you that industry likes certainty and schedules are helpful. When I said that 2020 would be a good goal, it was really in the context of completing the full categorized list that requires screening assessments. Within that timeframe it should be left up to Environment Canada and Health Canada to set the schedule for how those assessments should best be meted out.

From our understanding in talking with Environment Canada and Health Canada, we're expecting that very soon we'll see a schedule that delineates how these substances will be prioritized and meted out. From the latest conversation, we're expecting to see a scheduling of 15 substances every six months. That will help us schedule how we're presenting our information, preparing it, and assembling it, whether it's from our own companies in Canada or from international portions of our companies overseas. But you're right that there is a need for a schedule. Industry is very anxious to see that schedule and understand what is going to be demanded of us and when.

Putting a timeframe on each individual assessment is not realistic because, as I said in my comments, these will be highly variable. Some substances will require a lot of assessment and others will be quick to be completed, so I don't think that setting a timeframe on that basis will really be helpful. Having an overall timeframe for completing the full job could be of value, similar to what was happening in the categorization process. That's as much help as could be needed, from a political will standpoint.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Ms. MacKinnon, do you have a comment?

[Barbara MacKinnon, Director, Environmental Research, New Brunswick Lung Association, Canadian Lung Association]

No. I just reinforce his comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I also assume that officials from Environment Canada and Health Canada have familiarized themselves with the Pollution Watch proposal this morning.

First of all, I would like some information on substance assessment. How long does it currently take to assess a substance? May we get an answer from the officials on that?

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

That is a good question. In all honesty, it depends. There are two groups of new substances. We have 90 days to do an assessment and reach a conclusion on a new substance, but for substances that are already on the market, there are no set deadlines.

It all depends on the complexity of the assessment. It is easier when the substance is simple and we can obtain information on it. However, the assessment will take longer in the case of a more complex substance about which there is not much information. The time it takes to do the assessment may vary from a few months to two or three years in some cases.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

What does it depend on, resources, knowledges, processes? What explains the difference in assessment times for one substance over another?

When we studied the Pest Control Products Act, we realized that there were huge delays. Often, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency did not have the resources to conduct the study.

I have several questions. What factors affect the delays? Is it a question of resources, processes, or something else? Have you read the proposal made by PollutionWatch which was presented this morning? Given current resources, do you feel that you can use such a process and respect the scheduled deadlines?

[Paul Glover]

I am going to answer your first question.

In my opinion, several factors affect the speed of an assessment. Resources certainly have an impact, but having access to information on the substance is more relevant.

It really does matter how advanced the science is and how much information is available, so it's our level of understanding both domestically and internationally that has an impact.

The knowledge of the scientific committee has the greatest impact on the speed of an assessment.

I will now answer your second question. For both departments, it is not a question of resources, but the fact that an assessment can vary from one substance to another.

What I'm essentially trying to say is that if you give me a timeframe of six weeks, six months, or six years, we will complete it in that time. That is our job. What increases as the time shortens is the amount of variability or uncertainty in an evaluation. With more time, we have the ability to do more scientific research and arrive at more certainty. With less time, if the information is not available, then we have more uncertainty that has to be introduced into the evaluations.

And the other thing we have to consider is the use of the substance.

The use of a substance is, indeed, another factor and varies from one substance to another. One substance will be used one way, another substance will be a product that is used in various ways in several sectors.

On the use of a substance, it takes a lot of time to find out how industry is using it, where it's used, which products it finds its way into, and how it's released from those products. We're not just concerned now about the products themselves, but how the products break down, how they're disposed of. It is complex to get all of those questions. And I'm sorry for the long-winded answer.

So the shorter the time, the more uncertainty there is in the evaluation that we can produce. That really is the bottom line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe Mr. Freeman has a brief answer for you, Mr. Bigras.

[Aaron Freeman]

If I may comment on the current system, what we're talking about here is the new substances regime, for which there is a timeline of eighty days for the government to respond. This is for new substances. I'd like to point out to the committee that if we talk about domestic substances, the existing substances in the market, they've already had seven years to go through the categorization process and collect data through that process.

With the timelines that we outline, you wouldn't actually get a result until five years after you put in that timeline, and that's just for the first batch of 600. It would be seven years for the next batch and nine years for the third batch. We're talking about huge amounts of time to gather the types of data that we're talking about. On top of that, there are obviously exceptions that you can build into the process, like exemptions, time extensions, and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, your time is up.

Mr. Cullen, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for your petitions today.

I have a question for the Lung Association. You talked about the most vulnerable populations, concentrating on the effects on people we know to be at risk. In your presentation, I also heard a certain sense of urgency. How content have you been with the process so far, in terms of the government's ability to mitigate the harm to the most vulnerable populations, when it comes to these substances we're talking about?

[Barbara MacKinnon]

I'm Barb MacKinnon and I'm also with the Lung Association.

I think it's a mixed answer. Certainly the political will has been there for certain substances. I'd like to take the example of PM-2.5 and ground-level ozone, for which we've had a very good process under CEPA to develop new Canada-wide standards.

Using that as an example, our standards are really a compromise to protect people's health. They were developed through a multi-stakeholder process that had both industry and health angles at the table. Of course, economics played into our decision to create a certain level of ambient air that's allowed for these different substances.

Yes, it's an improvement over previous levels, and it will help certain members of the population. But those are examples of pollutants with no safe exposure level, so somebody who has severe asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in an advanced stage perhaps is going to die from exposures like that. So our level of contentment is on a sliding scale, representing our clientele of six million people. It saves some people; it doesn't save everybody. We understand the economic considerations for these standards.

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

Mr. Maybee, you talked about one in five Canadians being affected in some way. I want to make sure that number is accurate.

[Kenneth Maybee]

One in five Canadians is directly affected by respiratory disease, for a total of six million Canadians, which is huge. If I asked how many people sitting at this panel know someone with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or lung cancer, and asked you to raise your hands, all hands would be raised. So it's prevalent throughout all ridings, and it's an extremely important issue.

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

From your perspective, how much consultation has been done in past years? Do we know what the chemicals are? Do we know who the real bad actors are, or do we need more conversations and consultations?