Mr. Khatter, did you want to comment on that?
Evidence of meeting #8 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cepa.
Evidence of meeting #8 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cepa.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
5:30 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, PollutionWatch
I think we agree with Mr. Moffet that the issue is with existing substances. When we look at the mandatory timelines that are there for new substances and the resources that are put into it, if we put those same kinds of resources and timelines into putting the burden of proof on industry to submit data for the existing substances, we could get the same kind of job done.
We're putting 800 substances through new substances notification per year. We could be doing the same thing through existing substances as well, but we aren't choosing to do that.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That is interesting. On the grandfathering process of the 23,000, which is the number thrown around, is there no federal government assessment of those 23,000 chemicals?
5:30 p.m.
Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment
We've referred to the categorization exercise. CEPA 1988 didn't address those substances other than to say you must establish a priority substances list and you must assess those, and in addition, you can assess anything you want from that list.
CEPA 1999 said you must categorize all 23,000. The categorization is not an assessment.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's placing them into various categories of potential threat.
5:30 p.m.
Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment
Well, it's identifying certain hazardous characteristics associated with each of those substances. That exercise is completed and will be formally finished in September. That exercise has never been done anywhere else in the world. What we do with that information is going to determine the future of chemicals management and the safety of Canadians and their environment from chemicals in the future.
5:30 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Department of Health
We have submitted to the committee.... We do assessments of those existing substances. We've completed assessments. Some 69 were published through the Canada Gazette, part I and part II, representing some 550 of the existing substances. So there is work to go through those as we think there are issues to attempt to complete. So it's not like there is no work whatsoever. We have categorized and we do risk assessments of those existing substances.
5:30 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Department of Health
I want to make sure exactly what the numbers are.
5:30 p.m.
Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment
We haven't done 550 assessments. We've done fewer assessments that cover 550 substances.
5:30 p.m.
Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment
Yes. You can cover more than one substance in a single assessment.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Levy, one of the things we struggle with as we talk about the various families of compounds and chemicals is the causality. Industry will often say to us, well, it's much like the cigarettes conversation for so long: it's impossible to prove. Is there anything within CEPA as a piece of legislation or that needs to be put in to increase our certainty in times—and this speaks to the precautionary principle a bit—and avoid the 20-year, 30-year-long conversations of industry being able to fall back and say you don't have perfect science on this, therefore you can't ban a substance out of the market?
5:30 p.m.
Chief Medical Officer and Director, Office of Public Health, Canadian Medical Association
Certainly I don't think you can avoid those conversations. In a way it comes back to Mr. Watson's question. I'd say the generic answer to what we could do to enhance the science base that CEPA facilitates is to create obligations, not permissions, at the very generic level. So let's collect the information that's meaningful and relevant.
Secondly, invest in the biomonitoring. I think that's clear. Now, whether that needs to be legislative or some kind of implementation tool, I wouldn't venture into how one does that, but invest in the biomonitoring.
Pertaining to your question, the third comment I'd make is build evaluation frameworks that are robust and that allow for solid interpretation, given the epidemiological limitations. Epidemiology is ultimately a crude tool. Into the future, that might improve a little bit, but the debates are going to be there forever.
I thnk the precautionary principle is a very valid approach to take. You use risk-monitoring approaches, and as long as the evaluation frameworks are constructed in a robust way that withstands transparent scrutiny by all sides of the debate, I think that's probably the best you can do.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
I'd like to thank our guests for being here. I think you've opened up a lot of questions, and we might well need to have you back again to look at some of those. I think there have been enough questions here to cause that.
The meeting is adjourned.