Environment Committee on June 4th, 2008

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So Bill C-469 is proposing that this take place substantially earlier, and timing is very important. Given the mass production nature of the detergents, is it likely that the implementation of Bill C-469 in Canada alone--if it was just in Canada alone--would limit the industry's ability to reformulate and provide Canadian consumers with safe and effective and affordable products?

[Margaret Kenny]

My sense is that would be an important question to raise with the industry. As I said, in the consultations that we have had with them, they have stressed the need for them to properly comply with an orderly implementation on a North American-wide basis.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Are you recommending the date of July 2010?

[Margaret Kenny]

We believe that's a date that needs to be fully considered, and will be, in the course of the regulatory process.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Harvey had a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I think the bill presented here today is a bit redundant given the regulations proposed by the government. Do you think it's necessary to change the CEPA? Do you think that would be more effective than to proceed by regulation only, as the government has proposed—regulations on which it is currently working?

[Margaret Kenny]

Thank you.

Our normal process for setting product standards--and standards for substances like this--is through the regulatory process. Perhaps Dan Blasioli, from the Department of Justice, could speak to the issue in general.

[Daniel Blasioli]

I think that's an important issue.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a framework, a piece of legislation. It enables the making of regulations to deal with environmental protection, health protection issues. It's been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada on many occasions that environmental protection is an area that you can't have completely codified in law. Regulations are the place to do it. By fixing either a prohibition or a limit in the act itself, you tie the hands of what's intended to be a flexible regime and its ability to evolve with changes in scientific information.

I would say that a change to the act itself to crystallize these requirements weakens the regime. It doesn't make it stronger.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Do you all have the same position? Ms. Kenny or Mr. Carey, what do you think?

[Margaret Kenny]

It's our understanding that this committee will be considering the pros and cons of this bill and take that into context.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Phosphate is a substance found in nature, and we know perfectly well that it is not unhealthy. It is neutral. It is good to have a little phosphate. We use phosphates to clean dishes. What is more important than dishes since they are in direct contact with us? If there are traces of phosphate on dishes and on the clothing I'm wearing, I will very likely assimilate a little phosphate as well. Are the replacement products as safe for human health as phosphate? I understand that it's important to reduce phosphate, but have the replacement items that we've found, those that are available, been tested? Are we assured that they won't have any secondary effects and that we won't simply be shifting the problem?

[John Carey]

I don't think we now have a full understanding of the replacement products, what they will be, their identities, let alone their toxicology. I would have to say that they have not all been assessed.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Would it be wise to wait until 2010? That would give us the time to assess the secondary effects that the replacement products may have.

[John Carey]

We will certainly need time to assess this, particularly if there are new substances that would fall within our new substance guidelines. We would have to go through the process. Industry would have to notify us of their intent to begin using them, and we would have to assess them. That takes some time.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

So you think it's wiser to wait until 2010 in order to assess the replacement products.

[John Carey]

I think we should assess the replacement products as soon as we get their identities. That will take some time. We don't know what all of them are yet. So if some that we have not previously assessed are new substances, we will need time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I wonder if you have any idea about the cost of the replacement substances that have been looked at. Are they quite a bit more expensive than phosphate? Is that an issue? This is a problem that's been around for 30 to 40 years.

[John Carey]

In my experience with laundry detergents back in the seventies and eighties, the first replacements were quite a bit more expensive, but proprietary products were developed as detergent builders that reduced the cost. It's another process that requires time. The initial products could well be more expensive. I don't think we have data on that. They would have to ask the industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I have a little trouble when we say they need more time. We've known about the problem for so long. It would seem to me that cost may be the issue behind all of this.

I thank you for appearing. On behalf of the committee, we thank you for the information, and we'll carry on.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.