Evidence of meeting #26 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
I guess the issues that underlie the questions that have been asked relate to the right of Canadians to a healthy environment and the right of Canadians to have their government protect their health and their environment. I was reading this weekend a major newspaper that published a whole section on the rise in cancer among Canadians. I think the statement was that two out of five Canadians can expect to have cancer, and there was a reference to that perhaps reflecting a failure in public policy.
Coming back to what we were talking about today, to CEPA, would you like to comment on that as it relates to CEPA? Has there been a tendency to protect industry at the expense of protecting citizens?
4:25 p.m.
Canadian Environmental Law Association
Thanks very much for the question.
It's a difficult answer to a lot of questions around the rising rates of cancer and other diseases, in that we often don't know. That's particularly the reason why we have sessions like this, where we talk about the need for information. When we have such a large number of substances that have been grandfathered and are on the market without any data or evidence of either their safety or their harm, we simply can't answer the question as to whether those substances are part of the problem or not.
We know there's a problem. The problem is unexplained. We know there are all these chemicals we have very little information about, and we need to be able to put those two things together.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Hence, I guess your suggestion that we should err on the side of precaution and use the precautionary principle. Can you elaborate a little bit on how the precautionary principle would apply in a practical way in the reassessment of these products and the assessment of new products?
4:25 p.m.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Perhaps I could speak to that.
One of the most direct ways the precautionary principle could apply relates to the fact that there are hundreds of substances about which there is very little known information. I'm referring now to the existing substances, those that have been going through this categorization exercise, where government is trying to pull together whatever existing information there is about these substances and looking to see whether they pose a threat. When the information is not available on which to base a decision, the precautionary principle could kick in and determine that these substances need to be controlled, limited, prohibited, eliminated. Or alternatively, the precautionary principle could be used is to say that until information is provided to demonstrate the safety of those substances, they should not be used and risk management measures should be taken to eliminate them.
4:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
I'll try to briefly answer your question.
With respect to the cancer question you asked, I think it's important to recognize that our whole world is made up of chemicals. All the things we eat, we touch, and we breathe are chemicals, most of which are natural. For example, there are 17 carcinogens in a cup of coffee. Again, it's not the chemical, it's the dose that we need to take into consideration.
With respect to the comments that you raised, the statistics we have from the Canadian Cancer Society--
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Ms. Coombs, I'm afraid that people are abandoning their coffee en masse here.
4:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
I'm sorry to cause alarm. My apologies.
The statistic we have from the Cancer Society is that the new cases of cancer are primarily due to an increasing and aging population. The 43% of new cancer cases and 60% of deaths due to cancer occur among those, really, who are 70 years of age. We need to also put that into perspective as we think about substances.
With respect to the precautionary principle, I believe the precautionary principle is embedded in the new substances notification regulations. I also believe that the precautionary principle will be embedded in the risk assessments that will be done during the categorization and screening of the domestic substances program.
4:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Fertilizer Institute
Before you can sell a fertilizer in Canada, you have to register it with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In order to win that registration, you have to prove not only that the product is safe, but also that it is beneficial.
The choice you gave us in your example is not always the real choice we're facing. Quite often you have something that is very beneficial and is also very good for the health of Canadians but is nevertheless a substance.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
I have another question that relates to a comment Mr. Larson made regarding the word “toxic”. I'm wondering, Ms. Ginsburg, if you could talk about that question with respect to.... I believe there's been a court challenge on that issue already. I believe he suggested that it simply politicized the issue rather than addressed anything substantive.
Can you comment?
4:30 p.m.
Canadian Environmental Law Association
I'll try to answer that question.
We've spoken a little bit about toxic before, in terms of.... I think the question is making reference to the Hydro-Québec case in particular, and to other cases where the question whether CEPA was constitutional in terms of its federal authority to deal with these substances hinged, partially at least, if not fully, on the criminal law idea that these substances were toxic and harmful.
What we are concerned about is that if we tamper with the list as it is and with the term “toxic”, we may raise the possibility of a challenge to that constitutionality.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Canada seems to be thought of by various groups as having weaker laws with respect to products than, for example, some OECD countries. Would you agree with that, or would you comment on it?
I have read that the David Suzuki Foundation has commented, on the food we eat, that Canada seems to have one of the weakest regulations around some of these substances.
4:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
No, we wouldn't agree with that statement. As we mention in our brief, the new substances notification regulations provide a science-based, predictable, rigorous system for new substances being introduced into Canada.
With respect to existing substances, the categorization process is leading the world in how existing substances are being assessed and managed.
4:30 p.m.
Canadian Environmental Law Association
What we need to remember in terms of timelines is that the new European legislation, REACH, is not just coming but is basically here. The vote is on December 12. Everyone anticipates that it will be passed and that implementation will start in the new year.
What it will mean is that for the highest-volume substances, within three years we'll have data sets for all of them. By the time the CEPA review is finished and we have this revision to CEPA, if we haven't kept up in terms of requiring data sets for existing substances and for following the lead of Europe, the largest chemicals market, in terms of the transparency of health and safety data we're going to be a couple of steps behind. So although it's true that at the moment our new substances notification program is a world leader, we will quickly fall behind if we do not continue to progress.
4:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Fertilizer Institute
I would argue that we have the highest standards in the world for the registration of our products. I think that is one of the reasons we find it so troublesome to be debating the attachment of labels to our products.
I would just like to note for Mr. Arseneau's benefit, because he knows I want to get the last word in, that they never did assess potassium chloride. They know they didn't assess it. If it was such a very high-standard, peer-reviewed, internationally renowned study, I'd like to see the data that shows that potassium chloride should be treated the same way as sodium chloride—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
