Environment Committee on Nov. 20th, 2006

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

Let me tell you about it. Confidentiality regarding products used in the workplace was relaxed, because in the past, all businesses had to provide a whole arsenal of information and budget justifications, including some information that should not be divulged. This situation has been rectified, hence the usefulness of these meetings.

I don’t have any other questions Mr. Chairman.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Godfrey]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much to our witnesses here today. We appreciate your coming.

I'm just going to follow up on what my colleague was questioning about. I don't think there was adequate time. I don't know if the panel remembers or not, but I would like to go back to the issues of confidentiality. It's very important to me that we maintain the ability of industries and corporations, or whatever, to be able to compete and to be able to keep trade secrets and those kinds of things and balance that with the public's right to know what's going on in the environment.

As far as confidentiality with respect to the international sharing of information is concerned, we talked about REACH. I don't think that's been adequately thought out or addressed yet. I just wondered if I could get your feedback on that. Do confidentiality issues hinder the transfer of information? How can this problem be addressed?

If we could just revisit those questions, I would be interested in what you have to say.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Godfrey]

Mr. Larson.

[Roger Larson]

I'm very keen on this one.

Sorry, Mr. Godfrey. The reason I didn't speak up before is my industry does not produce patented products; we produce scientifically generic products. So the confidentiality issues are pretty much in the niche of the specialty products net.

I will address your comments on REACH, if I can, very briefly. Because we have generic products, we have been working as an industry on a product testing program for the last several years, both in North America and in Europe. We believe that all the analysis and information that we have on our products will be sufficient to meet European REACH if or when that program is approved by the European Parliament.

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Godfrey]

Ms. Coombs.

[Shannon Coombs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On your comments with respect to confidentiality, I think that in our brief we outlined what we felt were adequate provisions in CEPA. I know that the comparison was put forward with respect to the Pest Control Products Act and the differences in that. I think that information is available to people who request it; it's just a matter of how you go about it. Through the Pest Control Products Act there will be a provision where you can access that information via a reading room, if you make an application to do so. Through CEPA I believe you make a request under the Access to Information Act. The acts work in the same way; there's just a different way in how you go about getting the information.

With respect to REACH, I think that REACH and the CSDSL program are basically trying to address the same issue, and that is, building public confidence in how existing substances are managed. It's CCSPA's position that we're a decade ahead of REACH with respect to how existing substances are being managed. With a science-based program and a consultation process built into that with respect to due process for companies to respond to, we think that is the way to go. It's practical and it's workable.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Godfrey]

Ms. Ginsburg.

[Jessica Ginsburg]

Perhaps I could just take a few seconds for myself and then have permission to pass it to Dr. Khatter.

I just want to very quickly point out that not all pieces of legislation use the same test for maintaining confidentiality. For example, the Access to Information Act does not have a clause in section 15 of CEPA that refers to the damage to privacy, reputation, or to human dignity. A different test is used in the Access to Information Act. Also, I would point to the international trend that is moving away from confidentiality for chemical issues relating to health and safety of humans in the environment.

Perhaps I could just pass it very quickly to Dr. Khatter.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between trade secrets and health and safety data. The world is moving towards recognizing that difference. CEPA does a terrible job of making health and safety data public and transparent. As REACH is coming, if we're going to be sharing information, we need to be harmonized with other jurisdictions in terms of how we deal with health and safety data. In fact, we just agreed to the strategic approach to international chemicals management agreement with 160 other countries. In there it says that health and safety data run health and it should not be considered confidential.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Godfrey]

What a glorious 12 seconds.

Thank you very much for your answers.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

You're welcome.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Godfrey]

Ms. Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Before I ask my question, I would like to go back to Mr. Harvey’s comments.

I don’t want people listening to us to think that there was a secret pact with the devil. The NDP believes that the Canada’s Clean Air Act definitely needs to be tossed and completely revised by all parties in the House.

That said, I have one or two questions.

I have a question for Ms. Coombs. I believe you mentioned that industry is already providing the information required on health, safety, and so on. Then I assume that if the onus were officially placed on industry in the act, it wouldn't be more onerous. I believe your comment was that you are already doing this.

[Shannon Coombs]

Yes, we're already doing it.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

So placing it in the act should not be more onerous.

[Shannon Coombs]

I think it's implicit in the act, because it's in the regulations.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

I have a question that perhaps Mr. Arseneau or Mr. Glover can respond to. In the burden of proof, is there anything that requires industry, or anyone, to demonstrate that the interaction of substances Canadians are exposed to is not in itself the problem--that the interaction is not the problem, rather than one individual product? Is there that kind of burden of proof?

[Paul Glover]

It's important to talk a bit about the risk assessment process and how it works, because at the end of the day—I'll fast forward the tape very quickly—the ministers have to convince the Governor in Council. That's the ultimate test.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Please say that again.

[Paul Glover]

In order to get on CEPA's schedule 1, the ministers have to convince the Governor in Council. They have to provide enough information that something meets the criteria under CEPA, paragraphs 64(a), (b), or (c): that it harms the environment, that on which life depends, or human health. At the end, this is the threshold that needs to be cleared.

If you go back to the beginning, the risk assessments that the two departments do are quite rigorous, in both our departments' opinions. They attempt to properly identify the risks and provide sound scientific advice for the ministers as they move forward. They are peer-reviewed, and they do not have an objective of let's declare everything toxic or not. They are intended to be balanced science representations, and there are processes in both departments—science advisory boards—about how these people are promoted and their performances are dealt with, based on their objectivity in this regard.

So at the end of the day we have to produce a risk assessment that deals with our understanding of the risk to the environment, human health, or that on which life depends.

We are also required to look at whether there is a potential for this substance in terms of how it releases into the environment and how it breaks down. We look at different age groups. If we feel there are obvious mixtures, we can look at those as we do them. So we take a look at the chemical, how it's used, the products it's used in, and the potential for exposure. Then based on this, we provide advice for the ministers.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Godfrey]

First, Mr. Arseneau, I want to know whether you had anything to add, because I saw both hands go up, and secondly, Ms. Ginsburg wanted to come in.

[John Arseneau]

I did have a slight bit to add regarding your excellent question about how synergistic effects may be assessed. This is a very new and difficult area in the science of risk assessment, because it's often hard to understand all of the context for these interactive exposures. But our more complex assessments do indeed try to come to grips with this to some degree.

A good example is the assessment we did on smog to understand what kinds of atmospheric contaminants combine to form the essential components of smog, how this happens, and what the right levels of these precursors would be to avoid risk. As well, quite often we look at what a particular substance degrades to in the environment and what the impacts of those degradation products might be. It is an extremely difficult scientific question to be able to understand all of the various components of this, but it is an area of our ongoing research.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Godfrey]

Ms. Ginsburg, very briefly.

[Jessica Ginsburg]

Thank you, Chair.

I would add that the fundamental process governing the assessment is a substance-by-substance approach, which by its nature means that cumulative effect considerations are not adequately addressed.