Environment Committee on May 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lloyd, I hope that during my absence, nobody asked you the question that I am about to ask. During your presentation, you said that certain provisions in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act needed to be eliminated because they stood in the way of collaborating with the provinces.

Could you elaborate further on that point, since that is all you highlighted during your presentation?

Secondly, we met with groups who said that certain sections of the act, particularly clauses on virtual elimination needed to be amended, with a view to facilitating the process and to accelerating the timeline for virtual elimination of certain substances.

What do you think of that suggestion?

[Gordon Lloyd]

On your first question, I did address that a bit while you were out, but briefly, we think that cooperation with the provinces is going to become more and more important on issues like climate change and clean air. We'll need to make sure there are provisions in the equivalency part that don't stand in the way of using provincial approaches that are somewhat different from the federal approaches. We believe there needs to be an in-depth review of that by the committee. We don't think the answers you received from Environment Canada on this on Monday should be the end of the story. We believe that should be looked at more thoroughly.

On the virtual elimination issue, we have proposed a very narrow amendment in this area. As I said, it's to try to adopt the practical approach that was taken in the Stockholm convention so that this requirement for doing LOQs was only done in areas where it was needed and not when it wasn't needed.

Going beyond that and amending the provisions more fully.... There was an awful lot of time spent on CEPA 1999 on this issue. It was very divisive. I don't think that would be a good thing to get into.

I do think the question Mr. Cullen asked is a good one. Why isn't there anything on the list? I don't know the answer to that. I don't believe it's because the provisions don't support adding things to the list.

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

I have a question for Ms. Coombs. You walked us a bit through the process for disinfectants. I know the same rigour doesn't apply for other projects in the group that you represent--I'm thinking of cosmetics and even children's toys.

This afternoon I introduced a bill in the House about phthalates, which is a group of chemicals that cause all sorts of things. They've been banned in Europe and in some of the states in the U.S. They happen to exist in a group of products that don't fall under the same rigour as the one you described for disinfectants.

How would you suggest we capture, through CEPA or through this process, the same type of certainty that we have with the disinfectants you talked about?

[Shannon Coombs]

I can't speak specifically to plastics; we don't represent the plastics industry.

For the products that are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act, there are pre-market assessments and notifications, so cosmetics, for example, would go through a notification process.

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

Just for my understanding, does CEPA then...? It's meant to almost overlap with the Food and Drugs Act, at times. Does it overlap, or are they separate?

[Shannon Coombs]

It's my understanding that if you want to market your cosmetic, you have to notify the government that you're doing so. There are different types of cosmetics. If it's a cosmetic that is not making a therapeutic claim, then it would have to have a notification. If it is making a therapeutic claim, it has a pre-market assessment. Then there's the natural health products area, where there's a list of substances and if you fall within that category you have a natural health number review process as well.

I'm not familiar enough with it to know what the distinctions are, but most of the substances are on the in-commerce list that they would use if they're not new. So if they're existing, they're on the in-commerce list or they're on the domestic substances list.

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

My question is, then, if there is a chemical being used in one of your disinfectant products of the same family or order as a chemical being used in a cosmetic that doesn't purport to have any beneficial effects, is there any place for it to be scrutinized, under the process you've just described?

[Shannon Coombs]

If the substance is on the DSL, it would be captured under the categorization and screening of the domestic substances list. If it's a new substance, it would be captured under the new substance notification regulations.

The end use of that disinfectant would be captured under the Food and Drugs Act through a pre-market approval, and it would be given a DIN registration number. If it's a cosmetic, it would fall within one of those three categories.

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

One of the things we're seeking is to know how much of the study of these types of products is done by third-party or peer review, because the ultimate goal of CEPA concerning toxics is some sort of public safety element, so that we have things in the market that have been deemed safe by credible sources.

Does the process you just described become external to the company at any point? Do those tests get done by government, or does the company have to hire a third-party consultant, or do they do it in-house, or do they do testing at all?

[Shannon Coombs]

Companies certainly ensure that the products and the substances they use in their products are tested for safety and efficacy prior to their being approved for sale in Canada.

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

So this is an internal process, and then the company releases its data to the government. Is that the...?

[Shannon Coombs]

We provide the data to the government based upon their requirements, which they spell out, that we must meet Canadian law to ensure that the product is safe to be sold in Canada and for consumers to use.

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

So when government gets this data on this field of products that you described, this is the way we test it? And does government repeat the testing? What's the verification process?

What's to prevent a rogue company or someone doing testing at a substandard level, or fabricating results?

[Shannon Coombs]

You have to meet the data requirements the government sets out, so you have to provide testing that meets the government's requirements.

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

But to my specific question of someone, say, falsifying test results, what prevents it?

[Shannon Coombs]

I can't specifically answer that. I'm sorry.

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

Okay. I would be curious, because in the scope of this, it's to the benefit of all manufacturing companies to have verifiable and safe products. That means the testing has to be verifiable and good.

Is there a lowest common denominator here, or is it a highest principle in terms of someone who chooses to...? There have been examples, in the United States in particular, of pharmaceutical companies that were a little dodgy on some of the testing they were....

[Shannon Coombs]

I believe the companies provide the data that meets the law, and there are requirements set out by Health Canada that we have to meet. We have to provide that data before they will approve it for sale.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, I think your colleagues are getting restless—

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

Are they? When I'm engaged in a particular line of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think your time is just about up.

I would like to thank our witnesses. I know there will be other questions. We may well have to call you again. I thank you for your presentations.

I'd just remind members that a week from Monday we will be having an in camera meeting to decide in exactly which direction we'll go.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.