Environment Committee on Dec. 11th, 2006

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So it can be said that we should not just rely on the fact that a process is being engaged on 4,000 chemicals, but it's as much the criteria that are then getting applied and to what standard.

This brings me to a question around the indicators we use. Do we use vulnerable populations? What's the threshold where we say for this particular chemical this is the amount we consider acceptable after comparing it to the background and all the rest? I know there was some talk in the previous government of using indicators for children, seniors, vulnerable populations, as that threshold mark--not beyond this. Has there been any advancement beyond this that anyone has seen? Are we using other criteria and indicators to do it?

[Kathleen Cooper]

I think there has been advancement in terms of enshrining the requirement to do that in the Pest Control Products Act. It's why we've suggested it in CEPA, to make it required. It has been departmental policy for several years to address vulnerable populations. The modernization of risk assessment approaches has been occurring over the course of, I'd say, the last ten years, to be fair.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

One of the conditions or concerns in the previous process--and you can correct me if it's changed--is that there was this order in council process that was engaged. It became political, things delayed it, and things weren't getting listed. They had to go through very onerous processes that the cabinet never got to.

[Kathleen Cooper]

That speaks to another one of the recommendations we have made, which is the decision about risk. The decision to decide that a substance is CEPA-toxic is a scientific decision and should not be a cabinet decision.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Would you concede that there must be some room for economic considerations? Mr. Warawa and others have pointed out the risk versus hazards approach and all the rest. If something is buried deep inside a concrete product that's deemed harmful, the economic impact would be billions of dollars to remove something about which someone would say the hazard isn't great because it's not contaminating people.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

There is room for a socio-economic analysis when we're trying to decide what to do with something once we've decided it's toxic. But the actual risk assessment to determine whether something is toxic or not should fundamentally be a science decision. We support the idea that the minister be able to make that decision without cabinet approval.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Glover is trying to get in here.

[Paul Glover]

The member has raised a number of issues the member that I'd like to come back to.

First of all, with respect to the accountability in the measures, part of the plan that was announced speaks to bio-monitoring, which will be looking at what levels we're finding in people. In tandem with that, as we move forward with the risk assessments, we will be able to set measures. Part of doing that tracking will be to make sure we never approach those levels.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Walk us through that. Are we taking individual samples from people across the country, watching them over a number of years, and saying the lead's too high, we need to do something more?

[Paul Glover]

Yes. So as we do an assessment, we'll say we do not like a substance, or we do but we would never want to see it above this level. This program of bio-monitoring will then allow us to track progress. So risk assessments will set those levels and will allow us to move forward.

With respect to the pace, the other thing I should point out is that Canada is the only country in the world at this point in time that has been able to come forward, as far as I know, with a plan to the meet the SAICM commitment, which is the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management. We'll be done well ahead of the international deadline, which is 2020. They view it as a very long-term approach, and we're moving very aggressively. This committee has asked in the past how many assessments we've done since CEPA 1988. There have been about 500 substances. We're going to be moving that much through very quickly, as I've just pointed out.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a question about the independence of the reviews that are being done. I'm not talking about grandfathered chemicals now, but ones being brought onto the market. There's been much conversation with the witnesses we've had about the precautionary principle, about reverse onus being on the companies themselves.

Ms. Cooper, what's the state of affairs right now, from your perspective, in terms of new chemicals' being introduced, in terms of the rigour and the independence of that inquiry, and in terms of whether the precautionary principle is being applied sufficiently?

[Kathleen Cooper]

Are you asking with respect to new chemicals or with respect to what Mr. Glover has been talking about?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I am asking about new chemicals.

[Kathleen Cooper]

It's for new chemicals.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is the onus upon the industry introducing the chemicals or does it remain entirely in the public sphere for government to satisfy constituents?

[Kathleen Cooper]

Paul wants to answer, but no, the onus is on proponents--industry--to provide data. However, I would say that the evaluation also considers more so-called independent published peer-reviewed literature and/or it should. That's certainly the case for the evaluation of pesticides, which I know a bit more about, as far as being more up to date on new substances goes. There is a lack of transparency in all of this that, again, you can do something about with amendments to CEPA.

But let's let Paul talk.

[Paul Glover]

I wasn't trying to interrupt the witness.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You're enthusiastic, that's all.

[Paul Glover]

There are similarities and differences. Without question, the issue of transparency on the new substances side is less than it is on the side of existing substances. I would remind members that we have discussed that in the past. The issue is confidential business information with which industry is able to come forward. The onus is on them to provide the government with the data we need. But it is often cloaked with confidential business information that does not apply, or tends to apply less, to substances that are already in commerce, which we will be dealing with through the existing substances side.

In an effort to improve accountability, I'd just point out, a portal has been launched with information on all of these substances, so as the public increases its awareness about these, they will be able to find information about them. If, as we've seen, they're starting to show up in places we don't suspect, there's an opportunity for them to provide us with questions and information that will help us as we move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, we're going to have to move on.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have Mr. Warawa and Mr. Vellacott, I believe.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, thank you. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Vellacott.

Thank you again to the witnesses for being here this afternoon. I found it quite interesting.

I'm going to start off by asking Kapil his opinion on the announcement last Friday of Canada's chemical management plan.

We've heard from Ms. Cooper. Thank you for your presentation. I have a question for you in a moment.

But generally speaking, in the brief that you provided--and I thank you for this--there were a number of recommendations. Do you think our chemical management plan is a good step in the right direction?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

Thanks for the question.

I think there are kind of two parts to the announcement. In a way there's the announcement of what's been in the hopper, the kinds of things that Health Canada and Environment Canada are doing about flame retardants, about PFOS, about various other substances. Much of that, at least for us, is stuff we already knew about. It's stuff that's been in the process. We are fairly happy with the timelines for the assessments of the substances on the domestic substances list. So we're happy to see that the departments are being aggressive about moving on those substances. We're still at a point where we need to watch and see how those assessments tip, how precautionary those decisions are, whether declaring something toxic is going to deal with its presence in consumer products or not, how many of them are going to be virtually eliminated or prohibited, and how many of them are going to be risk-managed, to what degree they're going to be risk-managed, and what our standard is for protecting Canadians. Those are things we can't tell from the announcement at this point.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay, before I come back to you, Ms. Cooper, I have a question for Mr. Glover or Ms. Wright.

There were a number of examples that Ms. Cooper provided regarding lead—and Bill, you used the example of mercury. So particularly lead is being controlled through children's products, but for adult products, consumer products generally, there is a lot of lead out there exposing the adult population.

Could you respond, because I've heard general comments, but why is lead not being dealt with, or are there plans to deal with it in the near future, with the exceptions that you listed—X-ray, batteries, and what not? So there are exceptions for its safe use, appropriate use, low-risk use, but generally, concerning the cosmetic jewellery that she showed, why is it still on the market if it is an item of risk?

That was your question, I believe.