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.
NDP
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just speaking to the management of the substances, I get quite excited about a piece of legislation, Bill C-30, Canada's new clean air act--which is going to be discussed--and how it relates to CEPA and what we're discussing right now. It proposes to add additional flexibility in regulation-making authorities. The bill would allow regulations made under specific parts of the act to distinguish among persons, works, undertakings, or activities in order to protect the environment, human life, and health on the basis of factors such as quantities of releases, production capacity, and technology or techniques used. It proposes to extend authorities related to products that contain toxic substances, including specific air pollutants and greenhouse gases, to products that may release such substances during the course of intended use. So it's quite relevant and exciting.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask our department staff, has the government consistently met its deadlines on substances entering the commerce before proper assessment or without proper assessment? Have we met those deadlines?
Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes, Mr. Chair, I can confirm that we have.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
That's good news.
The last priority substance list was published in 1995, I believe. Is there a plan for a third priority substance list?
Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Department of Health
At this point in time, both ministers are looking at the results of the categorization exercise and have announced their intention to come forward with a plan to deal with those results. At this point in time, that's advice to the ministers.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Okay. Thank you for the brief answers. It gives me the opportunity to ask Mrs. Ginsburg about the missing data.
You were talking about that in your presentation. Could you elaborate on that? And Ms. Coombs would likely want to make comments on it too, the missing data and substances not being managed properly because of that.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Absolutely. There is a problem of missing data, or as the substances are referred to, “the uncertain substances”, because we don't know. That's an issue primarily with the existing substances that have just undergone the categorization process.
I would argue that even with the new substances that do have to submit a data set, as I mentioned, there are areas of that data set that could be strengthened, and one that comes to mind is chronic toxicity, which would indicate a lot of carcinogenic effects. So this is something that is not adequately dealt with in the new substances regulations.
With respect to the existing substances in the categorization process, as I mentioned, where there is not enough data to indicate toxicity, bioaccumulation, and persistence with the high exposure, the substance is not looked at further. So those are a certain set of criteria, and either because there's no data or it's of an extremely poor quality, if there's not sufficient indication that those criteria are met, then the substance does not get categorized and therefore doesn't move on to the next more in-depth assessment phase.
So I would say that would not be an example of a precautionary approach, because those substances that are fundamentally missing data may still pose significant threats to human health or the environment.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
I thought that in the categorization process, because it was science-based, there was science there that you had to make some determination that it met the criteria, which are persistent, bioaccumulative, inherently toxic, or there was potential for human exposure. So there is science to make a determination of the 23,000, and the result is we have 4,000 that require further assessment.
Again, the government set the parameters of the science that would be involved in that program. It will be involved in setting the science and the parameters of what science will need to be part of the second phase, the screening phase. I think it's a bit misleading to say there isn't evidence out there, because the government is going to be looking at a wide range of data. While they look at other jurisdictions, they can also use other programs that are in place. For example, I mention the high volume program that they'll be looking at.
As well, if there is a data gap or it appears there is a data gap, before a determination can be made about that substance being continued to be used in Canada, industry will be challenged to provide that data to the government for the government to make their assessment and determine if that substance can continue to be used.
Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Department of Health
Very briefly, perhaps on a slightly different tack, because of the way this discussion has evolved, I have some points I think are relevant. Dr. Khatter raised this, and I want to come back to it, as it's very relevant to this discussion.
First and foremost, it's important to recognize there is not a silver bullet in all this. If we demanded information from industry, as we do now, the departments still have an obligation to assess that, to determine if we can replicate that, if it's sound, if it's repeatable, and then work to draw a conclusion. When you take a look at how we receive that data, we have to validate it, make sure it is done according to standards, and replicate it.
The other point in all of this is that the science is evolving, so to ask for information on things like mixtures, cumulative effects, those are areas where we are concerned, but the science and its ability to answer that are still evolving. Some of these are areas where more research is needed--not just in Canada, but internationally--and there is an understanding of that.
If you take a look at the 23,000 chemicals, the number of potential mixtures, the number of ingredients that go into any one product, you could keep both departments busy for a long, long time on just one substance.
Liberal
November 20th, 2006 / 5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To clarify, I'm new to the committee. I know the domestic substances list is the list of 23,000 substances in trade. The toxic substances list versus the domestic substances list...I'm not too clear on that.
Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
Thank you very much for that question, because it's a very--
Liberal
Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
Oh, I see, the priority substances list.
Liberal
The Acting Chair Liberal John Godfrey
Are you wanting all three? Do you want a sorting out of all these three lists?
Liberal
Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
Okay. The domestic substances list is all of those chemicals that are in trade in sufficient volume, and it's been added to over the years as things come through our new chemicals program.
The toxic substances list is schedule 1 in CEPA, where the government has concluded that a substance is toxic and requires management under the act, and therefore things go onto that list.
A priority substances list is a list that the ministers from time to time may nominate or declare certain substances as priority for risk assessment. We have had two PSL lists in the past and have conducted assessments on those. That represented just under 70 assessments, but because some of those were larger classes or combinations, it represented many more discrete substances than simply the number of assessments.
Liberal
Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
The domestic substances list. It was to take a look at the entire suite of those legacy substances in commerce to determine whether they met the categorization criteria as established in the act.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Larson, you mentioned that road salt was almost shut out of Japan.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
So as I understand, the Japanese were taking advantage of a situation to create a non-tariff barrier. Is that...?
President, Canadian Fertilizer Institute
No. They import their fertilizers; they don't have domestic production. They were simply afraid their public would lose confidence in their food production system if they allowed Canadian potash into their marketplace, and were looking at banning it on that basis. So, no, it wasn't a matter of their trying to create an advantage for a domestic industry, or anything like that.
