Environment committee  Yes, and we're in the process right now of figuring out what that low-hanging fruit is.

Environment committee  Mr. Watson, as you mentioned, the categorization process of the domestic substances list is just finishing. One of the things we can think about in terms of outcomes is what we are doing with the substances that have been flagged in that process as being the worst actors. We have substances that Health Canada and Environment Canada have now determined are toxic to humans and the environment, and that are persistent in the environment.

Environment committee  Thank you, Chair, and committee members. My name is Kapil Khatter. I'm a family physician, and I'm the director of health and environment for PollutionWatch. I'll be splitting my time with my colleague, Rick Smith, who is the executive director of Environmental Defence. PollutionWatch is a project of Environmental Defence.

Environment committee  Yes.

Environment committee  I don't think it's actually a question of us being able to.... I'm sure the technical ability to measure smaller amounts is there. I guess I meant we're finding that low doses are potentially more harmful or more significant than we thought they were. There are “windows of vulnerability”, and when a pregnant woman, for instance, is exposed to something is as important as the amount she is exposed to, or almost as important.

Environment committee  At the same time, when we think about the Great Lakes, we think about it as a basin in an area where there is a large population and where 45% of our air emissions that are toxic air pollutants are happening. We need to think about how CEPA can deal with those, the other parts of dealing with a large population area with lots of urban centres.

Environment committee  There is a political agreement. I was going to check on it, and I did put in a couple of e-mails and haven't got a good response in terms of an estimation in terms of what the timeline is in terms of finalizing and implementing REACH. I will continue to search for that information, but they have agreed on REACH as a model.

Environment committee  I think our goal or our recommendation would be--you know, the term “best practice“ was used--to try to harmonize with the highest common denominator in any of our major trading markets. In terms of chemicals regulation, the European market is the biggest chemicals market and they're ahead of the game in terms of regulating processed chemicals, so it would make sense for us to harmonize with them.

Environment committee  We've been clear from the beginning that we thought CCME would be a distraction from getting the job done, my understanding being that anything scheduled under CEPA to be acted upon, whether it's a greenhouse gas or an air pollutant or a chemical, gives the federal government the jurisdiction to do something about it.

Environment committee  I feel a little lost at sort of being an expert on the regulatory side of things, but one example we can look to is the ambient air quality standards they have in the U.S. They have standards for six air pollutants. We'd be looking at those same air pollutants and having similar or stronger standards in Canada.

Environment committee  I think we're looking for an act that brings consumer products into CEPA. Right now, consumer products are in the Hazardous Products Act under Health Canada, which means that the environmental and also human health impacts of anything that's in a consumer product isn't necessarily regulated by CEPA.

Environment committee  When we think of something that's toxic, we think of something that's poisonous, that if someone is exposed to it, it can cause a problem. For us, the definition under CEPA is already watered down by the fact that it's only considered toxic if we know people are being exposed to it at a high enough level to cause a problem.

Environment committee  Offhand, I would say we need to realize that industry is not just one thing. The industries and companies in this country come from many different perspectives, and we need to hear from a range of them, because I think you'll find that they'll have different views. The comment I made earlier when talking about REACH--and someone else mentioned it as well--is that Canadian companies or companies that are importing into Canada are dealing with other markets as well, fulfilling obligations in other markets, and as harmonization is increasing and improving, we need to be able to say, if you're doing this for Europe and you're doing this for the U.S., it makes sense that you could do it for here, doesn't it?

Environment committee  As environmental and health groups in Canada, we would dream of a REACH-type system. I don't think we could come here and necessarily say we want REACH, because it's taken the Europeans a bit to get there. We want to move us towards REACH. If you guys are willing to go all the way to REACH, we'd be totally happy with that.

Environment committee  One of the things that the health and environment communities, and even industry, have been pushing for in Canada over the last while has been better biomonitoring, or better testing of populations. What we're doing a lot more of is measuring emissions, and what we're doing a lot less of is actually figuring out how much people are being exposed.