Environment Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

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

How should the assessment of substances be taken into account in terms of populations and ecosystems which are vulnerable?

[Cynthia Wright, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment]

That is why assessments require more time. In fact, we must look at how the chemical product is used and what impact it will have on health or the ecosystem. So, it is not just a matter of scientific knowledge; it is also a question of use or the lack of control, in other words, how substances enter the environment and what the impacts are. That is something to consider in the assessment.

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

That somewhat complicates matters by broadening, in the end, the range or types of risks associated with the product.

[Cynthia Wright]

Precisely, that information is needed as a tool to control risk management in an appropriate way.

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

Yesterday, I met with representatives from the Canadian Lung Association. I asked them a question that they were unable to answer. Perhaps you can help me.

We know that premature babies often have respiratory problems. In your calculations of the number of deaths currently related to respiratory problems, are premature babies that could not have survived without technology considered a significant part of this phenomenon?

[Barbara MacKinnon]

Most of our comments--in fact, all our comments--are based on scientific studies, not studies that are necessarily done by us, but that are done by the research community at large.

To my knowledge and my awareness of these research studies, they haven't looked at that. It's a really interesting point. I've never seen premature babies being singled out as a particular group in epidemiological studies. It makes sense that they might be more susceptible, but I can't answer that question. With new technologies, of course, they're able to bring these babies along to have healthy lungs. Later on in their life, I don't know if they would be more susceptible to acquiring asthma or to having greater susceptibilities to air pollution. It's an interesting point.

We know that people who smoke have smaller babies, and they might be premature, but that's the only connection I can see with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey, 30 seconds, please. Do you have another question?

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

That will be difficult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'll just remind the members that we will now go to our second round, for five minutes each. If the panel could keep their answers very short, we could get the most people in.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Glover or Ms. Wright.

As I understand it, there isn't peer review at the moment.

[Paul Glover]

I'm sorry...?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

As I understand it, we don't do a peer review of these chemicals. It's a departmental review that is part of the stakeholder consultation process. Is that correct?

[Paul Glover]

You guys are really going to like me today, but it depends.

The short answer is no. Existing substances are peer-reviewed, as per the definition put forward by.... So they are external to, or arm's length from, the department. We have a very rigorous process of peer review for existing substances.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But not for new ones.

[Paul Glover]

Not for new—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

And the rationale is?

[Paul Glover]

The rationale is timelines; we have to render decisions within 90 days. There's confidential business information contained in those. There are a number of things—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay, fine. Thank you.

I was reading about cosmetics, specifically that Breast Cancer Action Montreal is quite concerned about the ingredients in cosmetics. According to their statistics, a shampoo, Neutrogena, for example, apparently contains 689 ingredients, 137 of which raise health concerns and 65 of which present safety concerns. Further along, an article in the Montreal Gazette says that in the United States, 89% of the 10,500 cosmetic ingredients sold there have not been assessed for safety.

Is the situation the same here?

[Paul Glover]

We have regulations that require us to take a look at cosmetics and the substances in them. So it's not exactly the same in Canada as in the U.S., but I think it would be fair to characterize this as an area of growing concern. There are labelling issues with respect to cosmetics, or with the absence of labelling. There is a push from the population for improvements in this regard.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Obviously, somehow the CEPA process, whether it relates to timelines or any other aspect of the process, doesn't seem to be taking care of this problem. Would you agree? And if so, why? What is the weak point in the legislation—the regulations or the timelines?

[Paul Glover]

CEPA is one piece of legislation within the federal family. You also have the Food and Drugs Act and you have cosmetics regulations. What we have to do is to coordinate an assessment within those. So a substance may be used in an industrial setting, in consumer products, and in pharmaceuticals; we have to take a look at how that substance is used.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Sorry to interrupt you, but I don't have much time.

What is preventing you or any other department in the government from moving faster on this? For example, the European Union has amended its cosmetics directive to ban the use of chemicals known to cause, or strongly suspected of causing, cancer, mutations, or birth defects. Since 2004 cosmetic companies are required to remove hazardous chemicals from cosmetic and personal care products sold anywhere in the EU.

Again, why can they do it, but the United States can't and we can't?

[Paul Glover]

Science is constantly evolving. All I can tell you, sir, is that we do the best job available.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What's the impediment? What's keeping us from doing a better job? Is it resources or is it a timelines problem?

[Paul Glover]

I can tell you that both departments work very hard on the priorities with the resources we have. Science is always evolving.