Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for inviting me here.
I am a senior scientist with Environmental Defense in the U.S. That's the other environmental defence, the one spelled with an s rather than a c.
I am here to describe the results of research I'm engaged in that is comparing policies that address industrial chemicals in the U.S., the European Union, and Canada. This research is being done in cooperation with Pollution Probe here in Canada. I'm identifying what I've called best practices, which is basically elements of each of those three systems that can be either combined or utilized to identify the best approach, or a better approach if you will, in each of a number of areas.
I would like to give you a few highlights of some of those best practices. The views are entirely my own at this point. I have a report I'm developing that is currently in review and that I would be happy to share with the committee when it is a little further along.
Each of the points I make are related to the recently completed domestic substances list categorization process. They are intended to further the ability to act on that new information that has been derived from that exercise. Let me highlight a few of these in the few minutes I have.
The European Union is about to finalize its REACH proposal, which is a very significant overhaul of its chemicals policy. It will replace several dozen other statutes, and it will address a large number of the existing chemicals that are already in commerce, as well as new chemicals coming into commerce. The next 11 years or so after enactment are going to produce an enormous amount of new information about literally tens of thousands of chemicals. It is critical that Canadian agencies that are dealing with chemicals have the ability to tap into that information and to utilize it in their own evaluations of these chemicals. This is an enormous opportunity that the CEPA review should take advantage of.
I have a couple of specific proposals on this. The first is that because companies are going to be submitting information to the authorities in the European Union, CEPA should require that those companies also submit information to Canadian authorities for chemicals they either manufacture in, or import into, Canada. That should not be an added burden, since that information is already being provided. It would provide direct access to that information for Canadian authorities.
Second, it is important that steps be taken to ensure the Canadian authorities have full access to the information being collected under the REACH proposal. That includes confidential business information. In my opinion, CEPA should authorize Canadian authorities to negotiate with the European Union so they can have full access to the information under REACH.
A second area of priority for the CEPA review should be to ensure that the information that agencies have access to in Canada about the manufacture, import, and use of chemicals is up to date. Many of you may know that the recently completed DSL categorization process was forced to rely on literally 20-year-old data on the production and use of many of the chemicals it had examined. That is because the last time that information was systematically updated was when the DSL was created in the 1984-to-1986 timeframe.
It's critical that this information be updated, and that it be frequently updated, because there is a great deal of evidence about the massive fluctuations in the production of individual chemicals. My report will go into this in quite a bit of detail.
Literally, even from year to year, there's significant fluctuation, and it's critical that agencies dealing with and trying to track these chemicals have access to the latest information. I would recommend a combination of frequent, regular reporting, as well as a requirement that companies report whenever there's a significant change in the production or use of the chemicals they are utilizing.
Third, it is extremely important, especially in the context of DSL categorization follow-up, that the burden on government to require additional information generation by industry be as minimal as possible. A great deal of the DSL categorization process resulted in chemicals that were identified as either being in or out, based on relatively low confidence information, or were not able to be classified because of a lack of information. It's very important, I think, that Canadian agencies be able to follow up and require the development of information to complete that picture as they go into this next phase.
Unfortunately, section 72 of CEPA imposes a fairly significant burden on government that essentially says that unless you know that a chemical has the potential for posing a risk, you cannot ask for additional information. That is a classic catch-22 situation that impedes the ability of government to develop information on large numbers of chemicals. While that burden is significantly lower in Canada than in some other jurisdictions, it nevertheless poses a burden that is going to impede the progress of DSL categorization follow-up.
Fourth, a key innovation in the REACH proposal in the European Union is to increase the flow of information about chemicals throughout the supply chain of chemicals. The producers of those chemicals don't often currently have very good information about how their chemical is actually being used, who is using it for what purposes. Likewise, the customers of those suppliers often don't have good access to risk information, the properties of the chemicals, the ways in which those chemicals need to be handled.
What REACH does is essentially compel a two-way flow of information along that supply chain. I think those provisions are very innovative, they address a very real problem in chemicals management in the world today, especially in a much more globally integrated system. CEPA review ought to look carefully at those provisions within REACH and look to see what aspects of that might be adopted here, to really make sure that flow of information is occurring.
Finally, let me end with one other point. DSL categorization has identified something in excess of 4,000 chemicals on the DSL that are going to require follow-up screening assessments. That is an enormous number of chemicals to be handled, if you look at it on an historical basis, and it is critical that the ability of Canadian agencies to address those chemicals in a prompt and efficient manner be there. That's a function of resources that are devoted to this; it's also a function of a recognition that government has a key role to play in making sure this happens.
We would suggest that CEPA should be looking at the need for milestones to ensure that this process advances promptly and efficiently in terms of timelines, and numbers of chemicals perhaps, that need to be assessed in a given period of time. The agencies are already doing a lot of work to prioritize that list and try to get at the ones that are of most concern first. I think that's very good and should be followed up with an assurance that those chemicals are handled in as efficient a manner as possible.
Those are some of my initial thoughts. I'd be very happy to answer questions, and also to work with the committee beyond this in terms of your review of CEPA over the next several months.
Thank you.