Environment Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

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

Thank you.

I'd like to give some of my time to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have one minute.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I am a bit nervous. Mr. Scarpaleggia talked about Neutrogena. That is what I have been using every day, until today.

I would simply like to ask Ms. Wright if she can make a very quick comment on the findings and recommendations contained in the report prepared by Ms. McKay.

[Cynthia Wright]

I'll make it fast because peer review was already handled.

Risk management, proportional risk versus actual risk is a question under consideration. It involves determining what the actual risk is and what the best tool is. So we consider a range of tools that we can use to control the risk.

I'll have to get back to you on the third thing, the PO mechanism. I'm not aware that it was raised in the new substances regulation.

There was an assessment of the increase, but I do not know what the results were, as it was done several years ago. I would like to respond to that aspect of the question in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just let us know through the clerk, and then all members will have the information.

Mr. Velacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I want to address my question to Mr. Freeman, and I'd like the Lung Association to comment as well.

Should the act enable other jurisdictions' risk assessments to be recognized? We have international bodies that do this kind of stuff. Other countries are doing careful work. Should some of this be factored into—or more quickly factored into—our assessments in this country?

Dr. Khatter.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

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. We would support having their science and assessments to base our work on, but we would not necessarily take their assessments and simply act on them. We need to be able to review their assessments to ensure that they are applicable in Canada.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Some substances that are new to Canada have been assessed elsewhere, maybe very thoroughly. Having this information from them would accelerate the process, would it not? If it's good, peer-reviewed science, why would we not want to use it?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

You're speaking of new substances?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

That's correct, but they have originated and been assessed elsewhere.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

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. If we don't turn it around in 90 days, then it goes on the market automatically. So I don't think anyone is complaining about the timeline.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Is there some reason why we don't get information? There was an allusion to the United States or some countries that, for their own reasons, will not provide or divulge it. Is that a problem or a barrier? There was an allusion by one of the presenters that it was not possible to get the information through the States. Is this often a barrier in getting material from other jurisdictions?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

I'm not up on TOSCA, in respect of the confidentiality issue. I think we need to look at business confidentiality and balance it with the public good—health, safety, and the transparency around public health and safety data. We need to be able to get this information from other countries. With respect to REACH in Europe and our relationship with the U.S., we need to be working harder at sharing information.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

You're saying we are not obstructed in getting this information, for the most part, from other countries, be it Europe, the States, or elsewhere.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

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.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I wanted Health Canada to respond as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Soule, do you want to respond?

[Jack Soule]

I'm making a presentation on this on Thursday.

Essentially, the problem with TOSCA is that the U.S. EPA uses other companies' data, as well as the notifiers' data, to make a decision. It's because there are third-party data involved, which may be confidential, that they have trouble sharing their assessments. It's a complex problem. It's not necessarily the original notifiers' data. We've had exchanges of data with the U.S. But this situation has posed a problem on the health side, in understanding their assessments.

[Paul Glover]

We do have reciprocal agreements with other countries, but we have had difficulties because of confidential business information. This has been a problematic area.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

How much of a problem is it? On a percentage basis or numbers of products, is it a big problem? Does it loom large, or is it an insignificant problem?

[Cynthia Wright]

It's fairly significant, because it's a problem with the U.S. information, and that's where a lot of the manufacturing and assessment is. With smaller jurisdictions, like Australia, we already have a complementary assessment approach. But it is a problem with the U.S. legislation.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

My other general question, to the Lung Association again, is that in terms of managing substances, in what ways--and I guess you've made those comments in your presentation as well--does enforcement of the act need to be improved?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Some of these items are going to be dealt with on Thursday, access to information from other countries and so on.

Your time is up, so I'd like to go to Mr. Lussier and then quickly to Mr. Watson.

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

My question is for Mr. Kenneth Maybee.

You said that air pollution was also linked to green house gases. You said that there were common sources, but that there were also common solutions.

In your case, what are the common solutions?

[Barbara MacKinnon]

If I could answer your question, we know that the common sources are burning fossil fuels, for example. They make air pollutants and carbon dioxide. The common solutions could be in energy efficiency actions, where you reduce your individual usage of power--drive your car less. Also, some common solutions might be alternative sources of electricity, such as wind and solar power.

One of the things we have to be careful of in some of these solutions is that you can choose a climate change solution that might, for example, be burning wood, which is reportedly climate neutral. But burning wood creates a lot of air pollution, so it's perhaps a poor choice from an air quality point of view. You could have a solution for air pollution that doesn't fix climate change--for example, scrubbers on power plants, which take out sulphur, but they don't take out carbon dioxide.