Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of Parliament. It's a pleasure to be here today to discuss the two key issues for our industry sector pertaining to your review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
My name is Shannon Coombs, and I'm the executive director of the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, but I'm here today representing FPIC, the Formulated Products Industry Coalition. Our unique industry coalition of 15 trade associations was formed in 2001 due to the Food and Drugs Act being subject to CEPA.
FPIC member companies provide food, personal care products, household cleaners, cosmetics, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals to Canadians. Collectively we represent 750 companies. We comprise a $66-billion a year industry, and employ over 375,000 Canadians. A list of the members of our association is in our submission.
So why are we here today, and why are substances in the Food and Drugs Act subject to CEPA? CEPA is the legislation that governs new and existing substances in Canada. In 1999 parliamentarians requested that CEPA be the safety net for all environmental assessments of substances. In section 81 of the act, there's a requirement for other acts to have a pre-market assessment to meet or exceed CEPA's environmental assessments. Other acts had two years to meet that requirement, and if they did they were scheduled for exemption under CEPA. If they did not meet the requirements, then CEPA would be the act to govern environmental assessments.
Other acts, such as the Seeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, and the Pest Control Products Act, met CEPA's requirements and were scheduled for exemption. The Food and Drugs Act did not meet the requirements of CEPA; therefore environmental assessments for substances in Food and Drugs Act products were subject to CEPA's regulations--the new substances notification regulations.
We've been working under this regime for the past five years, and we're satisfied that CEPA is the most appropriate legislative authority for these substances. However, when Food and Drugs Act substances were captured under CEPA, it left in limbo a list of approximately 9,000-plus substances that have been used safely and effectively by Canadians for almost 20 years. These substances are in limbo because they're considered to be new, and not existing, under the act. This needs to be remedied. I'll refer to these 9,000-plus substances in the rest of my presentation as the in-commerce list.
Since most of our member companies have never been subject to anything other than rigorous pre-market assessments and/or notifications under the Food and Drugs Act, being subject to CEPA was new and challenging. Despite a learning curve, FPIC has recognized that CEPA's systems and regulations provide predictable and rigorous submission reviews to member companies and protection to Canadians and their environment.
I know that you'll hear numerous issues about the act from other stakeholders, but FPIC is requesting the committee to consider two key recommendations for improving the act. They would provide legislative clarity that only Parliament--you--can provide. They are as follows.
First, we would like the in-commerce list acknowledged as a list of existing substances under the law by creating a provision in CEPA to recognize them as such. You're probably asking yourselves what's on the in-commerce list. There's quite a range of substances, including pharmaceutical actives, cosmetic ingredients such as extracts, surfactants that are used in disinfectants, food colourings, flavourings, lard, starch, kiwi essence, oil of lemon, etc., just to name a few.
Why do we want to have them treated as existing substances? The substances and products have provided and continue to provide benefits to Canadians. They've been in commerce for almost 20 years--clearly they're not new but existing--and it makes sense. To ensure there is a mechanism for the in-commerce list to be treated as existing substances, just as they are on the domestic substance list, we're suggesting that the government categorize or prioritize--whatever word you want to use--the in-commerce list, and then, if needed, provide screening-level risk assessments.
I believe the officials from Environment and Health Canada provided an overview of the categorization and screening of the domestic substances list, as did Gordon in his presentation. Treating all existing substances the same also makes sense.
I'd like to turn to the issue around the use and meaning of “CEPA toxic”. FPIC is requesting the committee to consider removing the word “toxic” from the legislation so there is clarity and understanding with respect to how substances are assessed and managed in the act. If the risk assessment of a substance meets the definition, it's placed on schedule 1, and then some type of management for that particular use is evoked.
As stated in our submission, the challenge is the misunderstanding of the term “CEPA toxic”. CEPA toxic substances have been misinterpreted as being intrinsically toxic, i.e. poisonous and/or lethal. I will give you some examples of substances on schedule 1 that cause some confusion.
First, CFCs destroy atmospheric ozone and are toxic to the environment but they're not toxic to humans, which is why they're still used in asthma inhalers, for example.
Two, ammonia is on schedule 1, but it is only CEPA toxic in the environment from ammonia traces found in waste water effluent. This substance, of course, is used in numerous other applications, such as fertilizer or glass cleaner. They've become targets because of the listing of CEPA toxic and the misinterpretation.
Carbon dioxide, which we also mentioned in our brief, is on schedule 1, so that greenhouse gasses can be managed. But carbon dioxide is not intrinsically toxic, as we all rely on it to breathe.
Clearly the challenge around the term “CEPA toxic” is the misunderstanding that prevails and the actions that stem from it. Groups often target products that may contain the substance, apply the label of “CEPA toxic” to all the uses of the substance, and alert Canadians to a risk that's not a risk. They've all been instances of provincial authorities making procurement statements regarding CEPA-toxic substances, stating that products cannot be purchased if they contain schedule 1 substances.
If the term is removed, we believe it will provide clarity in the act, and we believe it will increase the credibility of the act as well.
Is there anything that CEPA can do better? Always. CEPA is a huge piece of legislation, and imbedded in the act are the pillars of the precautionary approach: science-based decision-making, sustainable development, risk management, and pollution prevention. And if anything, increasing the communication to Canadians about the successes of this act and how it provides protection for Canadians is in everyone's best interest.
For example, as Gordon mentioned, the categorization and screening of the domestic substances list is a made-in-Canada program. Other OECD countries have programs in place, but Canada is definitely in the lead. And this September, the first phase, the categorization, will be completed, which is a major achievement and one that I believe Canadians should know about.
If anyone has any questions on that, we'd be happy to answer them.