Environment Committee on Dec. 11th, 2006

[Kathleen Cooper]

I can speak to the Pest Control Products Act and its implementation by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. It's not necessarily an issue with respect to CEPA.

Certainly I'm aware of the progress that's been made in terms of getting through the backlog of re-evaluation, which is comparable to the backlog we're talking about here, only it's significantly smaller. They have gotten through about 50% of them. At the same time, as you mentioned, there are lower-risk pesticide products available in the United States that aren't necessarily approved for use here. There is an attempt to push that forward.

I don't think it's directly comparable, though, to talk about pesticides coming off the market. In the United States the availability of those lower-risk products and their not being available in Canada is not the same thing as taking the hazardous stuff off the market. The choices to remove the more hazardous pesticides have actually been more frequent in the United States, or it usually happens there first, and we tend to follow suit because of harmonization under NAFTA.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I think Mr. Glover is perhaps more inclined to want to speak to this question, because it affects Health Canada.

[Kathleen Cooper]

Okay.

[Paul Glover]

If it pleases the chair, just briefly, with different pieces of legislation, Canada has had different types of experience. Under CEPA, for example, our new substances notification program is viewed around the world as one of the strongest pieces of legislation for dealing with new products. Based on the success we've had with that, we're able to negotiate cooperative agreements for information sharing with other countries through CEPA.

On existing substances, the progress you mentioned earlier has had a lot to do with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency's attempting to reach similar types of reciprocal agreements with other countries to speed up the assessment process.

Finally, any regulatory action that is taken has to be accompanied by what is called a RIA, a regulatory initiative impact assessment, which tries to balance off the initiative, the concerns for the environment, for health, and the economy.

The final point I would make is that the ultimate answer is the government's approach to dealing with sustainable development, something that all departments are attempting to contribute to.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

We'd be remiss if we didn't talk just for a moment--and this is directly to CEPA--about salt.

You mentioned earlier, Ms. Cooper, that sometimes trade trumps health and safety. How would you apply that argument to the issue of salt and its toxicity, to those who want to bring salt under the toxic classification? In fact, if we were to remove salt from our society and remove it from the road salt application, how would we be able to justify the health and safety of that product in the same way as we would the other?

I know what the answer is, but here is a product that we have been using for generations, for thousands of years, from the beginning of time. I would hope your indulgence would never cause us to go down the road where we would classify salt as having the same toxicity as we're talking about some of these other products having.

[Kathleen Cooper]

The road salt issue, as I understand it, was the issue of road salt specifically being environmentally toxic. That was the nature of that decision.

But I think Dr. Khatter wants to respond to that.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

Mr. Chair, my understanding is that the assessment was of a mixture. Road salt is actually a mixture of salt and other things, so we're not talking about table salt necessarily.

In order to do that assessment of toxicity, basically you need to schedule it and declare it toxic so that then you can do something about it. What's done after that toxicity assessment can be reasonable and can be appropriate to what road salt is used for.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

That would be a pretty difficult one to classify, one type of salt as being toxic and another type of salt as non-toxic, because it comes out of the same hole.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Steckle, I can assure you the committee has listened to the salt people and they've been here and testified—

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I haven't been here before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, I realize that, but certainly we could suggest you look at the transcripts. You'll see that issue was literally part of one entire session.

Are there no more questions?

I'd like to thank our witnesses and to thank the members for being here.

The meeting is adjourned.