Environment Committee on Nov. 20th, 2006

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Ms. Ginsburg.

[Jessica Ginsburg]

Could I respond? The comments around burden of proof were directed to both existing and new.

[Shannon Coombs]

So is your argument that industry is not providing enough data for new substances and existing substances?

[Jessica Ginsburg]

There are a number of areas of existing and new substances that I think could bear improvement. Certainly the onus on industry to provide data for new substances is an improvement over essentially the non-requirement that existed originally for the existing substances. There is a data set there; however, there are certainly areas where the data set could be improved, especially around chronic toxicity and children's health issues. There's room for a number of improvements.

In terms of the government's authority under those two areas, there's a reason why I know it's still an issue under the new substances regime, as well as the existing one. Approximately seven years ago I was involved in the multi-stakeholder consultations that extended to around two years and looked at revising new substances notification regulations for chemicals in polymers. One of the major issues that we dealt with was paragraph 84(1)(c), which was government's ability to augment the existing data set with additional pieces of data where they felt that data was required.

There are these core data requirements in the regulations themselves. Sometimes, based on the information to come from those core data requirements, government feels that additional tests need to be performed. However, under paragraph 84(1)(c), its authority to require those additional tests is constrained by this suspicion-of-toxicity threshold, essentially. There was a fundamental lack of understanding about what that threshold was. It's not defined. Different people within government can interpret it in different ways, but essentially it creates this unspoken pressure to already determine the substance to be toxic in order to request further information. So it's a bit of a catch-22.

We tried at that time to explore ways that the language could be clarified, perhaps through guidance manuals, but it was decided that the ultimate goal was that there needed to be some clarification in CEPA itself and in its unclear language. In fact, we feel the caveat, the suspicion-of-toxicity requirement, should just be taken out, so that when government does feel it needs additional data to make its assessment, it should have the authority to obtain it. That same language appears for both existing and new substances.

I think my colleague Kapil also had something quick to add.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Mr. Chair, is it okay if I take more of Mr. Godfrey's time on this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Sure.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

At some point I would like to be able to do the international comparison, but I'll just do the domestic comparison to the Pest Control Products Act. What we have in terms of comparing the existing substances to the new substances is that the Pest Control Products Act requires quite a bit more information, requires testing data on every substance, every pesticide on the market. I think one of the witnesses who came before the committee explained before that it's a weird thing that where companies make both chemicals that are not pesticides and chemicals that are pesticides, on the pesticide side they have to create all this data and on the other side they don't. So on the one hand, we feel the information requirements are weak particularly for existing substances, for which there are no information requirements, and for the new substances as well.

In addition to that, the new Pest Control Products Act now sets a different standard for confidentiality. It divides business confidential information from the test data related to health and the environment. You can go to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and you can look at all that test data. It's public information now, and we believe that should be true for chemicals falling under CEPA as well.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you for that. I don't have much time left.

Mr. Arseneau, as you hear these suggestions, do you think the effectiveness of CEPA would be improved by what Ms. Ginsburg and Dr. Khatter are saying?

[John Arseneau, Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment]

Perhaps I should explain a little bit about how that part of the act becomes operational within the new substances program. It happens whenever a risk assessor believes there is a reason for concern that isn't addressed adequately by the test information that has been received or the adequacy of our predictive models. We would then go back to a company and require different types of testing and more information to be able to make a determination.

We've always viewed that piece of the legislation not so much as an invitation to conduct ongoing research as much as to address a particular concern that we are becoming aware of, usually because of emerging science such as areas like perfluorinated compounds, which only became of concern recently because of information coming to us. We've gone out and asked for more information in that context.

So that's how we tend to apply it. And if we were to apply that in a broader context, I'm not sure we would know exactly what to ask for that would help us make a determination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Larson, our time us up. Very briefly, you wanted to get in.

[Roger Larson]

Thanks.

I want to attempt to address Mr. Godfrey's questions. I think that CEPA is much less effective than it could be because it causes a misdirection of resources. As I mentioned, it doesn't ask what meaningful risk management would be. It spends its time politicizing the issue. With something like a pesticide, if we understand the Latin root of the word, “icide”, which is “to kill”, obviously you're going to have a toxicity question. But many substances need to be managed that do not properly fit into that category, and resources are misspent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Lussier.

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

Mr. Larson, you say that we focus too much on risk assessment and not enough on risk management.

Can you explain in further detail what you mean by risk management?

[Roger Larson]

I'll try, yes.

Risk management, to us, is managing the impact that substances can have in their normal use in the environment and managing the potential for misuse in inappropriate areas by educating users on things like best management practices. CFI has developed a very comprehensive science-based program for certified crop advisers to advise farmers on how to manage nutrients properly, whether they're fertilizer nutrients or manure sources or other organic sources, and to ensure there is a balance between the nutrients applied in the field and the nutrients removed in the growing crop. These best management principles are much more effective at helping 240,000 farmers in Canada manage nutrients appropriately than some concept of hiring envirocops to follow along and try to tell these farmers how to operate, which we all know would be completely ineffective, and Environment Canada couldn't possibly manage the resources to do that.

So instead of spending our time on political debates as to whether or not a substance should be labelled in a particular way, we would be much more effective if we looked at what programs can be used in part of the normal economy.

I have a publication on best management practices for fertilizer I'd be pleased to share with you. And while I only speak English, it is in both English and French. I'd be very pleased to share this with you.

Thank you.

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

As for the road salt study, was recommending alternatives part of your mandate?

[Roger Larson]

Yes, it was. I was not the lead organization in that issue. We worked with a number of different organizations, and of course the association of municipalities, which put forward a code of practice that they developed themselves for best management practices for salting. It's an excellent example of the kind of cooperative best management practices that can be put together between industry and users, in this case urban municipalities, with the participation of government in an appropriate way and without inappropriate and overly forceful regulation or legislation.

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

However, didn’t all alternatives to road salt have to undergo toxicity tests before being deemed non-toxic?

[Roger Larson]

I would first suggest that road salt is not toxic either, but it can be harmful to, for example, a row of apple trees beside the roadway. It can affect certain species of grass in the ditches, and that is a negative result.

There never was an assessment done on potassium chloride, which is potash. As I mentioned, when we mine potash, it's roughly 40% sodium chloride and 60% potassium chloride. When we separate it out, there's generally a bit of potassium chloride that ends up with the salt, so if you use that salt on the roads, there's a bit of potassium chloride in it. Whether that potassium chloride presents the same kinds of issues was never assessed. There was and there is some validity in the science of asking whether this alternative is better than sodium chloride for the environment, but I think the first step is to see whether, with good management practices, we can manage sodium chloride, which is the most cost-effective way of maintaining ice-free roads. If sodium chloride is $10 a tonne and another alternative is $150 a tonne, the first thing to do is to better manage the sodium chloride before you increase people's taxes that much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Arseneau wants to get in a comment.

[John Arseneau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have just one point of clarification. The risk assessment treated road salts as a kind of mixture, understanding that there were different chloride compounds included in the product, and did an assessment on that whole mixture, which did of course include potassium chloride. It was a very thorough science-based assessment; it was peer-reviewed and internationally leading. The main issue it addressed was whether the amounts used were causing concentrations sufficient in the environment to have adverse effects, and it did come to a conclusion on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, Mr. Lussier.

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

I would like to go back to what Ms. Coombs said.

You talked about the government’s communication strategy. I’m sorry I may have missed something. Were your comments addressed to Health Canada or Environment Canada? Since you say that we shouldn’t make people afraid to consume certain domestic and consumer substances, what kind of information do you think should be included under the communication strategy?

[Shannon Coombs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

The CSDSL program, as I commented in our opening remarks, is leading the world with how existing substances are being managed. It is our assertion that there needs to be a communication strategy to inform Canadians about the process the government undertook for the categorization process, the science behind that program, and the results of that program. Approximately 4,000 substances that have met the criteria in some way are going to be on that list, and that needs to be properly explained. There are going to be substances on that list that are beneficial to Canadians, substances like vitamin A and tamoxifen, if you are a cancer patient with a particular type of cancer. Titanium oxide is another example that we had. It's an ingredient in sunscreen.

What we're asking is that what's on the list be put into perspective. First you have to go back to what's on the DSL, which is a huge range of substances, as we discussed earlier in my presentation. We're looking for something that clearly articulates that the program has been science-based, articulates where we're going with respect to the results and next steps, and explains to Canadians what's on the list--because, as I mentioned, there is food, and it is both departments, to answer your first question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Glover, I believe you want to get in.

[Paul Glover, Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Department of Health]

I would say that these comments are addressed to both departments. We are now working together to develop an action plan and a communication plan to achieve results under the categorization process.