Health committee  --all of the uses of that product, so whether it's used in a closed loop in a factory to make something, whether it ends up in a finished product, whether it's released out of a smoke stack; and we put, if appropriate, controls on all of those rather than only one. One of the things we try to do under CEPA is look at the substance, and to dedicate management that looks at the full use of that substance rather than one slice, so we're not in effect squeezing a balloon and finding that it's popping out somewhere else.

Health committee  You have duplicated efforts, with respect, and when CEPA does that more integrated assessment and finds there is a problem, it can then hand off that assessment to other pieces of legislation, to say there is a product problem and action needs to be taken. There was a question earlier about bisphenol A, BPA, where the assessment was done under the chemicals management plan, and the baby bottles were recalled under the Hazardous Products Act.

Health committee  CEPA is quite a large piece of legislation. I'm not sure I'm in a position to fully answer that question. When you take a look at CEPA as a stand-alone piece of legislation compared with the page and a quarter that has been provided here--the range of tools and the breadth that CEPA covers, all uses of a particular chemical--it is a significantly broader piece of legislation in terms of protecting the health of the environment and that on which life depends.

Health committee  Yes, this would overlap with the assessments that are done under CEPA. It would create duplicate legislation.

Health committee  We would find that highly problematic, as industry, NGOs, and stakeholders would wonder which piece of legislation they're being held to report under, which legislation's penalties and fines we would be required to use and administer. We would probably find over time that they may lobby for one versus the other, given the level of protection that one would afford.

Health committee  Madam Chair, without having the list and knowing exactly which organizations, my response is limited. I will say that with the chemicals management plan--which was the new approach to looking at chemicals, as a result of the prioritization and responding to the concerns about the environment and human health--the department and the government received significant accolades from around the world, from both industry and non-governmental organizations.

Health committee  Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the first issue and leaving a part of it in, with respect, that would continue to be problematic from the point of view that it again would duplicate what already exists in CEPA and where CEPA goes beyond that to look at all uses of a particular substance and all their releases into the environment, not just from the product.

Health committee  Thank you for the opportunity to have a moment to examine the amendment proposed. This amendment does present the department with a number of concerns in that it does create some duplication of what already exists within CEPA, where these activities are already undertaken, and would therefore create some confusion about which act, how to administer, and when.

Health committee  The fundamental concern of the department is that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act already does this work. It has gone through an extensive exercise to prioritize all chemicals in use in Canada, at the direction of Parliament. It went through all 23,000 chemicals in use in this country and prioritized based on a number of specific criteria: the potential for exposure, and whether they are a hazard to human health, to the environment, and to that on which life depends on this planet.

Health committee  We appreciate the intent of the amendment. It is problematic for a number of reasons. It essentially puts an end date on the exemption. Tobacco is covered by another piece of legislation that does not have an end date to it. The government has a strict policy for dealing with tobacco.

Health committee  We have no concerns.

Health committee  I'm not sure the officials have been provided with NDP-2.1.

Health committee  Thank you. With respect to our comments on this, we understand and appreciate the objective of the amendment. The concern the department would have with this is with respect to paragraph 36.1(3)(b), the 160 calendar days. The government has been criticized that it has been slow to move under the Hazardous Products Act, and to have 160 days for the committee to consider regulations when the House isn't sitting....

Health committee  The department has no concerns and appreciates the consideration.

Health committee  Our understanding of the amended version of this regulation is that it's limited to a specific set of regulations that the committee would have interest in. Under the act, those would be regulations developed under proposed paragraphs 36.1(4)(a), (b), and (c), which are not all of the regulations.