Environment Committee on Dec. 11th, 2006

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think what we're concerned about when we're talking about the interaction between acts is how weak CEPA appears to be in relation to other acts. Even within the Department of Health, besides “between” departments, we have a problem where substances can be regulated under CEPA when they're in consumer products or medical devices. But instead of the act saying they “should” be regulated by CEPA or that CEPA does that regulation, there's a weaker stance, that it “can” be regulated that way. What ends up happening is that it's left to other sections of Health Canada that use a different—

To give you an example, mercury in a thermometer can be regulated by CEPA, but it's left to the medical devices folks, who say they don't think mercury in thermometers is a problem. So mercury thermometers remain for sale in Canada. Another example would be the DEHP, the phthalates, in medical devices, which is toxic under CEPA. Health Canada, through CEPA, would have the power to deal with DEHP in medical devices, but it's left to the medical devices bureau, who, instead of taking on that responsibility, have shirked that responsibility to act in dealing with the DEHP problem.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Pursuant to the Act:The Governor in Council shall not approve an interim order unless the Minister has consulted with other ministers of the Crown in right of Canada to determine whether they are prepared to take sufficient action to deal with the significant danger.

Can you tell me if there have been times when, further to the consultation process, an order was not approved by the Governor in Council?

[Cynthia Wright]

This power is not often exercised. We're talking here about interim orders, about situations in which another department may be involved. The Department of the Environment is responsible for ensuring that the department in question does not take on this responsibility. If memory serves me well, this measure has only been invoked twice since 1988, and in both cases, the department maintained its authority. As I see it, this provision merely ensures that two departments will not resort to the same action at the same time.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

In your opinion, are there cases of duplication?

[Cynthia Wright]

Rarely does this occur.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Glover.

[Paul Glover]

On the question of overlap, to be frank with the committee, we do try, and I appreciate Mr. Khatter's comments about certain parts of the department, in his view, shirking their responsibilities. The issue here becomes this: are those different parts of the department looking at the specific use, the material in use concept, and do they consider that appropriate?

Now, there have been instances where some of those things have resulted in certain different interpretations based on an appropriate use, and the department has had to come back and revisit. An example is a substance that's used in both a pesticide and an industrial setting, and what's a residual amount that's acceptable to be found in water. How do you find that? How do you set that? So there have been instances where, under two pieces of legislation—entirely appropriate, based on their use—slightly different conclusions have been arrived at. Those have been identified and reconciled.

So the process does work, but there are times when the interpretation of the science, based on the use, needs to be reconciled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Ms. Cooper.

[Kathleen Cooper]

The point I was making on lead is that it was grandfathered into CEPA as toxic. There wasn't even a need for an assessment report back in the early 1990s.

We know that lead is toxic. My concern is not about overlap; it's about a gap when something is toxic under CEPA and this steady stream of consumer products can continue. We can talk for six years about the need for regulating this junk, but the only thing that gets regulated is 1% of the problem. That's a gap, and it's a problem that needs to be addressed. It needs to be put into a discussion around concern about overlap. I'm more concerned about gaps.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Lussier.

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

I'd like to come back to Ms. Cooper.

I'm concerned about the large amount of $1 items that are sold. We're talking about vast quantities of plastic materials.

In your opinion, should these small items be controlled in some way?

[Kathleen Cooper]

I don't think there is enough. First of all, there isn't a regulatory framework that determines whether or not they should be there in the first place. There's an assumption in the public's mind that if something is on the shelf it's been evaluated and determined to be of acceptable risk, or safe and okay to be on the shelf. That is a false assumption to make.

It's very challenging for Health Canada to do the kinds of inspections that are necessary to address the vast range of products. It's understandable. You can't test everything before it goes on the shelf, nor is there the capacity to do the kind of inspection that I think would be necessary to be able to avoid toxic things being on the shelf. That said, there's probably an argument to be made for increased inspection.

Again, the notion of a materials use approach is an efficiency measure. It says if it's toxic, don't use it unless we've said these are the exceptions, rather than chasing after one product after another and not knowing. In the example you use, that's my greatest concern as well. In the dollar stores, the cheap stuff is economically accessible to children and/or low-income people. It's often the place where you're getting the exposure to phthalates, the exposure to lead, the exposure to various substances that are of concern. It's a social justice issue, a children's health issue, and we need an efficient response to it, I think, that doesn't have to chase down each and every thing every time something comes up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to pick up on this. It seems to me, when I look at the list of chemicals that have been listed and identified, now we're going to be going through a type of triage. Even the pace described--maybe I can get a determination of when we do get through the 4,000. What's the estimate right now of assessing and applying some sort of management regime for the 4,000 chemicals that we've identified as being potentially harmful? What's the horizon? When is that process likely to finish, given the current funding?

[Paul Glover]

Given the funding that was announced, rather than current funding?

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

Sorry, yes, funding announced.

[Paul Glover]

There is a significant acceleration. We're moving from the two departments doing about 10 assessments a year, which would cover a number of substances larger than that--there could be more--to moving forward with between 15 and 30 through the challenge program every quarter. There are a couple of things that make the answer to your question a little difficult in terms of a precise time, but if we talk about a number of specific things that will happen, there have been 500 priorities that have been identified, and those are being acted on immediately.

There were 150 substances that met the criteria, that are on the domestic substances list, which means they are allowed for use in Canada, and we're going to say those should no longer be used. And that was done over the weekend. There's the challenge program for industry, which speaks of 200. There are another 150 where we're going to say there are limited uses that are acceptable and that's it, we will do that. That will deal with essentially 500 of the 4,000 in very quick order.

We've committed to also doing rapid screening assessments, by the spring, of another 1,200 to come through regulatory conclusions, where we think that's straightforward.

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

If I start to crunch those numbers a bit, and take out the ones that you've lopped off the list—

[Paul Glover]

I haven't finished.

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

There's more.

[Paul Glover]

There will be 1,200 rapid screening assessments; there are the 500 that have been dealt with in very quick order. What we have then committed to is saying we will continue that process with those that are still left in the 4,000, the other 2,500 to 2,800.

We have also said to industry that we're happy not to have to wait to continue to do that. If you would like to take a look at those substances, come forward with data on those that will allow us to move more rapidly through that, and we will be able to move through this more quickly.

Right now the plan is to get through those 200 in the challenge program within three years. For industry that is willing to come forward to work on some of the other substances that have been identified—and industry is already stepping up, saying we don't want that stigma you've heard so much about attached to us; we're happy to look to negotiating how we can move away from these, to what timeframe. We're hopeful we'll be through this fairly quickly.

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

I was wondering if Ms. Cooper could respond to that in terms of past experiences and the plan that's been proposed. Know that the reason I'm asking these questions is not as much to attempt a criticism on what's been suggested, but just to have some sort of realistic understanding, based upon our experience with tackling these. Is the approach we're taking with the timelines that are given the appropriate one?

[Kathleen Cooper]

I think what was announced and what was just outlined is a good step forward. It's been a roller coaster of a weekend for a lot of reasons, so I'm not exactly sure, but I'm pretty sure--and Kapil has looked at it as well—that the timelines that have been suggested for this next round that Paul just outlined roughly correspond with the recommendations we've made to the committee to enshrine in CEPA.

Is that true? Could you comment on that?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

I think we're fairly happy with the timelines. The real question, of course, is which way these assessments are going to tip or how precautionary we're going to be when we're making these decisions. How protective are we going to be in making these decisions? In particular, in the context of consumer products, we're concerned about a trend towards exempting consumer products as one of the things from the prohibition. For instance, when PFOS was gazetted to be prohibited, the imported consumer products were exempted, and that's exactly where we would think there would be a problem if there was one.