THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 5, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met in public and in camera this day with videoconference at 9:00 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-5, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act.
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Paul Massicotte. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee.
Today we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep their microphones muted at all times unless the chair calls on you. When you speak, please do so slowly and clearly.
I would like to remind honourable senators that, in an effort to obtain more information, we have put together panels of three witnesses. I will do my best to get to everyone who wants to ask a question. To that end, I ask that you keep your questions and preambles brief. That applies to our witnesses as well, if possible.
Each senator will be entitled to one question, as well as a supplementary question or a follow-up after the first question only.
I would now like to introduce the committee members who are participating in today’s meeting: Senator Margaret Dawn Anderson from the Northwest Territories; Senator David Arnot from Saskatchewan; Senator Rosa Galvez from Quebec; Senator Clément Gignac from Quebec; Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman from Quebec; Senator Karen Sorensen from Alberta; and Senator Josée Verner from Quebec. We also have with us Senator Stan Kutcher, who is the sponsor of the bill.
Good morning to you all, colleagues, and to all Canadians who are watching.
Today, we are continuing our study on Bill S-5, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act.
For our first panel of witnesses, we welcome Darren Praznik, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Beta Montemayer, Director of Science, Regulation and Market Acces, both from the Cosmetics Alliance Canada.
We also welcome Bob Masterson, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Danielle Morrison, Policy Manager, Chemical Health, both from the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada.
Lastly, we also welcome J. Gary LeRoux, President and Chief Executive Officer, from the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association.
Welcome to everyone, and thank you for accepting our invitation.
[English]
Darren Praznik, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cosmetics Alliance Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for this opportunity to present on this important piece of legislation. We have distributed — I hope it has been distributed to the committee — a copy of our formal presentation in both English and French. I’m not going to read that, obviously. I just want to highlight a few key points in my oral presentation, and certainly will be prepared to take any questions you have.
A key part of understanding our interests as the cosmetics and personal care products industry association in Canada is the interaction between the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, and our industry. Our products as finished products are primarily regulated by the Food and Drugs Act. CEPA, however, which has been a key component in the Chemicals Management Plan, or CMP, over the last decade-plus review of substances, very much assesses the ingredients that we use under the Chemicals Management Plan for both the environment and human health. In many ways, we have two layers of regulation to ensure environmental and human health safety. One through the Chemicals Management Plan, both for environment and human health, and, of course, then the actual product regulation. How the two interact with finished consumer products is really the main focus for our industry and our interest.
I wanted to highlight with you that we have been very much engaged in this process of the Chemicals Management Plan for over a decade. Mr. Montemayor, who works with me, is one of the environmental toxicologists in our industry. We were one of the first associations to bring one aboard over a decade ago, and he has been very engaged in the Chemicals Management Plan.
It is really fundamental that CEPA sets and establishes the structure — the system — to review these substances. It is really key that it is a credible, science and risk-based system. Our experience over the last decade — as the Chemicals Management Plan and CEPA have reviewed over 4,300 substances, many of them used in our industry — is that it has been a very credible, science and risk-based system.
There have been substances that our members have used that have been prohibited or restricted under CEPA. Some have been approved and given a good bill of health. But whatever the decisions have been, that system has been viewed as one that has been science-based, that has a sound risk assessment and that we have lived with those decisions and fully accepted them because of the credibility of the system.
Like all legislation — and I’m a former provincial health minister for Manitoba and had lots of experience with regulator structures in my days in government — what is really, really important is credibility and that the system works. We think this one does.
It is also important to modernize those systems from time to time. That is why, in reviewing this proposed legislation, we think it’s an overdue modernization and, generally speaking, worthy of support. We come to this bill supporting it and the initiative to modernize it.
A couple of areas that we want to flag are around the topic of amendments. This becomes important because this legislation is hugely complex and interacts with other legislation that regulates — in our case — finished products, like the Food and Drugs Act.
It is really key whenever you are making any particular changes to ask how it reacts or interacts with the other legislation that governs those products.
Consequently, there are no amendments that we at this time are supporting. When you look at amendments, because of that complexity, you have to be very careful because doing one thing can lead to an unintended consequence somewhere else. Amendments, to make them work properly, are very complex. We think that if you were looking at making any kind of significant amendments, you really have to ensure that you are not setting off some unintended consequences and that you are understanding how best they interact with the other legislation and other regimes that are affected by this.
There are two that I would like to particularly highlight now because we understand there may be some interest in amending. One deals with the alternatives to animal testing. Over the years, we have come to work very closely with the Humane Society International and Animal Alliance of Canada’s Be Cruelty-Free campaigns, and our organizations collectively have reached, I think, a very good agreement on approaching the ban on animal testing for cosmetics. We’ve collectively worked with Health Canada. One of the things that we’ve all agreed on is that the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act need to be drafted by Health Canada and not by us so that they fit within the Canadian regulatory system.
We’re very much looking forward to seeing those amendments coming from the government shortly. I think that you will see unified support for them.
It does make the point that we do recognize that there is, in the preamble, a proposed recognition of the need for animal testing alternatives. We fully support that. We understand there may be an interest of adding something to the bill beyond the preamble. We would suggest that if this committee or Parliament wishes to do that, that it be in the neighbourhood of enabling regulations so that the minister and the Governor-in-Council can then deal with all of the specific kinds of details — as we’ve had to do as stakeholders with Health Canada on cosmetics — that they have the time and the ability to work out the details.
We would encourage that. We think that is the way to go. In the long run, alternatives to animal testing involve, again, a great deal of complexity, but if you are considering going beyond the preamble, we would not be opposed to that but we think it should be through the power of the Governor-in-Council to make appropriate regulations in appropriate legislation to be able to accommodate and advance that particular agenda.
The other one we want to flag is the area of labelling. This becomes important because our products are all subject to labelling rules under the Food and Drugs Act, many of which have been in the process now of being modernized pursuant to Vanessa’s Law that Parliament passed some years ago.
If you looked to expanding labelling requirements, we would have trouble with how they interact with other legislation. We believe that the principle of best-placed act is important and that labelling requirements on finished products should be undertaken under the act that regulates those products coming to market. Various legislation currently has different requirements. It is critical that that be taken into account if you want to go into that particular space.
Our experience with Health Canada and their modernization is that — and I think one senator flagged this — if you add more requirements to a product label, all you do is grow the product packaging and create other environmental problems. We found that Health Canada, as a result of that same problem, has now been looking at electronic labelling as an answer for more information. If the intent is to provide the consumer with more information on the substances in their product, electronic labelling provides the answer particularly in a world where more products are being sold via e-commerce. Currently, you can buy a product on the web and you may not see the label at all. If you want to look at an amendment in that area, it should be one empowering both regulation and the use of electronic labels going forward for products under the best-placed act.
My last point is not legislative but administrative, namely, when you are dealing with finished consumer products, having two different departments regulating or administering and enforcing regulations can be very cumbersome. We have noticed the environment department starting to get into the realm of enforcing environmental regulations on finished products while the health department is enforcing health-related ingredient issues. Quite frankly, we’re not opposed to the regulation. However, we think they should be combined into one unified administrative and enforcement system.
Those are my comments, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Masterson, you have five minutes maximum.
Bob Masterson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada: Thank you, chair. I will be brief.
It is a pleasure to be with you here today on behalf of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. Our chemistry industry is the third-largest manufacturing sector in Canada, and we’re poised for tremendous growth. We are aggressively pursuing the transformation to a low carbon and circular economy for our materials. It is an exciting time to be a part of the chemistry industry.
I’m pleased to be joined today by Danielle Morrison, Policy Manager, Chemicals and Health, with the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. Before I begin, I want to take a brief moment to acknowledge and thank the clerk and tremendous team of supporters with her that helped to make today’s meeting possible.
Our industry and membership are all Responsible Care organizations. At its heart, Responsible Care is a commitment to continuous improvement every day. We learn from our activities, from our mistakes and from others’ good practices and make them our own so that we can do better tomorrow.
With that as the context, we truly welcome this bill, Bill S-5, because it represents a comprehensive and appropriate update to CEPA and a chance to learn — from 1999 until today — what has worked well, what has worked less well and what are others doing that we can learn from and improve our own efforts.
This bill has followed years of study by parliamentary committees and years of involvement and engagement from the best experts in the departments and other stakeholders, like ourselves and representatives from civil society. What you see is a comprehensive set of proposed amendments that are broadly in agreement and necessary to improve CEPA.
At the heart of the bill and at the heart of the act is, of course, the Chemicals Management Plan. We’re very proud of what the chemical management program has accomplished to date.
A key principle of that program, though, is this idea that exposures of concern are being assessed and managed using a proportional instrument. What does that mean? Mr. Praznik has already said this, but the concept of the best-placed act and a risk-based approach to managing those substances of concern is at the heart of CEPA. At the end of the day, that has been retained in Bill S-5. Whatever comes out of this process needs to remain risk-based to enable the most appropriate instrument to be utilized. That is highly consistent with Canada’s strong regulatory directive.
Again, CMP has been a very successful program. No other jurisdiction has managed the progress that we’ve seen under CMP. We’ve started by categorizing 23,000 substances already in commerce. We completed robust risk assessments of almost 4,000 of the 4,300 highest priorities and took many risk management actions.
It is often forgotten, but an equally important component of CEPA and the CMP is the New Substances notification program. That ensures that any new substances coming into commerce are proven safe before their intended use, before they enter commerce. Each year we see another 500 new substance notification assessments and roughly 30 control measures to ensure public health and environmental health are preserved. It is an excellent program. It has delivered excellent results. We can continue to improve it, but we should be careful not to harm it.
The work has also achieved tangible, measurable and visible results for human health and the environment. That is seen most recently in the updated biomonitoring study that was released last year. These are important results. We can see the results of the assessments and the risk management instruments that have been put in place.
I also note that the bill is coming at a very opportune time. It is the natural end, if you will, to the latest third phase of the chemical management program and the first iteration of that program. We’re now moving into phase four, so there is a chance to build on the lessons learned and talk about how we prepare for that next phase.
We have earned a reputation as the gold standard in chemical management through CMP. As we move into the next phase, we have an opportunity to take the program even further. One thing we can do with our system for categorizing risks and risk managing substances is to encourage consistency so that we have more harmonized trade, more harmonized ability to manage the risks of substances and articles coming into the economy by exporting the Canadian approach to other jurisdictions. It is already in place — a risk-based approach similar to our own — in the United States and in Australia. We can do more of that.
We do have some concerns about implementation of certain elements of the bill. That would include things like the watch list. There are a lot of questions about that. More broadly, we have publicly communicated our support for the bill and many of the features are important to us, which I have already said.
We look forward to discussing our broader observations on the bill, responding to your questions and continuing to engage you in this process as well as the government as we move towards the final, revised legislation. Thank you for the time this morning.
The Chair: Mr. LeRoux, you have five minutes.
J. Gary LeRoux, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Paint and Coatings Association: Thank you, chair. Our industry represents all the manufacturers, suppliers and distributors of painting and coatings products in Canada. It represents about $12.5 billion in economic impact and supplies 5,000 retail outlets, like big-box stores. Our manufacturer members own 3,000 retail stores themselves. We supply product to the architectural, industrial and automotive sectors, including the original equipment manufacturer sector — all the cars coming off the production lines — and the marine sector. We are very much involved in all aspects of coatings.
Generally, we support the proposed amendments to Bill S-5 — and I would like to get into some specifics — but we have some concerns, especially with respect to reliance on future guidance to provide clarity on some key amendments. I think that this is where the Senate could do some good work in providing more clarity and better interpretation within the act before us, rather than having to deal with it after the amendments to the act are promulgated.
Industry really needs clarity now. The minister said at this committee last week that Canadians expect government “. . . to ensure that substances are managed effectively through transparent approaches and activities.” The Canadian Paint and Coatings Association supports this view. However, we would add that those approaches and activities must rely solely on evidence-based, scientific data. If not evidence-based, what kind of data is it?
The Canadian Paint and Coatings Association, as Mr. Masterson mentioned, has 4,300 substances prioritized in the last three phases of the CMP — 15 years — with 1,538 of those being implicated in the paint and coatings sector in Canada — one third. We have some deep experience in dealing with assessments and providing the data that officials need to make fully informed assessments.
The work done by industry and government on chemical assessment ensures that the various stages of the screening assessments of chemicals are robust. This requires extensive engagement with industry and other stakeholders — as my colleagues have mentioned — and countless bilateral and multilateral meetings until we cross the finish line, which often leads to regulations in the Canada Gazette. It’s not easy. It takes time. It takes patience. Rushing risk-based, scientific decisions with a hard-and-fast timeline for some arbitrarily imposed time clock — as suggested in the amendments — serves no one’s interests, especially not the environment or human health. It puts greater strain on both officials and those in industry supporting their work.
The minister also said to this committee, “. . . industry requires a stable and predictable regulatory environment to help us deliver on [our chemical management] goals.”
We agree with the minister. The system has worked well because of the dedicated officials, who have strong educational backgrounds and deep experience in all fields of science, as do our staff and our members. They apply this first in prioritization of chemicals to be assessed — the ones of highest concern. Then, a very deep dive is taken on the substantive review of the data required to conclude robust chemical assessments.
This is what makes the CMP work. What industry appreciates most, as do my members, is that these risk-based decisions are not dependent on politics or any particular political agenda per se. They are based on hard science, as my colleagues have noted.
It is not good enough to suggest, as one senator did last week, that “. . . science is already saying that cumulative effects are in fact making things more toxic, not less toxic.” That has always been the case. Such blanket statements, while true, minimize what it takes to add real value to risk assessments.
Assessors and those required under CEPA to provide the substantive data must meet a higher standard, and they do. The science is always fully considered and will always be considered. As the minister also noted, CEPA and laws will evolve “. . . as science evolves on these matters.” That’s true. We are now seeing that in many ways with new approach methodologies for chemical assessment and other initiatives to enhance those assessments.
A concerted effort is being made to make it better. It did not take amendments to CEPA to do that. The fact remains that no one can get ahead of the science. We have seen a lot of so-called science and facts during the pandemic, and it did not serve governments or Canadians well. Let’s not go down that road.
As an example, I do not believe that having things such as a watch list will work when substances can be nominated without any substantive predictable process for prioritization. Science is vastly more complex.
Mere suspicion of something being capable of becoming toxic in the future, as stated in Bill S-5, is not good enough.
The Chair: Could you close, Mr. LeRoux, please?
Mr. LeRoux: I will. The amendments to this bill have to be predictable and transparent for everyone. I would like to say that the Senate and government have a responsibility to focus on how we can make the chemical management system better, and our industry will work with you to make sure that that happens in this bill.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Mr. Masterson from the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. To go back to your colleague’s remarks on transparency, you say in your brief that you are opposed to the amendment to require the disclosure of the explicit chemical or biological names of substances or living organisms when risk management instruments are in place.
If I understand correctly, you feel that the increased transparency required by the government goes too far.
My question is quite simple. Shouldn’t the priority be the health of citizens and the health of the planet, rather than the fact that you want to avoid having your substances analyzed? I imagine that you’ll say that all of this is confidential.
It seems to me that at this point, the health of citizens and of the planet should weigh in your transparency analysis.
[English]
Mr. Masterson: Thank you for the question. First, that is a bit of a misinterpretation, perhaps, of what we have communicated, and the fault for that lies with us.
There is no question the information must be provided to the regulators and the assessors. They need that to do their job. There is no question about that.
There is also no question — we have not said the government has gone too far. In fact, a little bit the opposite, consistent with what Mr. LeRoux and Mr. Praznik have recently said. You are proposing some amendments here without sufficient detail with an element of, “Oh well, trust us; we’ll get this right in the future.”
So it is not a question of do we oppose the release of more information, it is under what circumstances, and are those circumstances consistent with other laws and regulations in Canada?
But here is the most important part of what industry is really concerned about: We look at other regulated areas, and we can think of pharmaceuticals where Canadians are denied the latest and best drugs and treatments available to help protect their human health. Why is that? It is not because industry doesn’t want it here or because government doesn’t want it here, but because we’ve created regulatory systems that are so cumbersome and so costly to process that it is not worth industry’s time to bring in innovative new products.
We have to make sure we have created the right balance here. Yes, the government and the assessors have to have all the information they need to make a decision on the toxicity or otherwise of a certain substance. The public deserves and has the right to know about the consequences and the content of their products. But it has to be balanced with a system that allows the protection of confidential business information from competitors and that is not so cumbersome that it prevents industry from wanting to introduce new products or innovative new solutions that will benefit the environment and human health. That is where the balance lies. It is not a black and white question, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m trying to understand your answer. Under what circumstances would you ask the government not to publish or reveal some of the substances you are using? Is it just a question of confidential information? How would confidential information balance with the health of people and the planet?
Mr. Masterson: Again, it comes down to — this is the question of confidential business information. It is not confidential perhaps with respect to the public, but it is from your competitors. When you are talking about named and patented ingredients, and the concentrations of those that make the product what it is, those are what adds value for business and they deserve to be protected and Canada has laws for that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is it a sufficient reason, sir, not to reveal what is in your product? I’m sorry I’m repeating that because it seems to me very different from the balance of risks.
Mr. Masterson: I think the question is one of balance and there is information that is provided and there are rules that decide what — just because industry wants to say something is confidential doesn’t mean that it is. There are rules and procedures that will guide that decision whether the information can be protected. We are reasonably confident with those that are there now. We’re somewhat concerned about amending those in a way that will pose constraints on, again, innovation and the ability to introduce new substances into Canada.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for your presentations. Perhaps let’s start with Mr. Praznik of the Cosmetics Alliance Canada. In your letter to our committee, you stated that the way in which the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Food and Drugs Act interact is important to your industry:
. . . to ensure that these overlapping regulatory frameworks are aligned, do not create contradictory requirements, and are efficient for compliance and enforcement.
I am, too, very interested in how those will be aligned. This is a special piece of legislation because it now requires the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Health to work together when assessing substances for their toxicity, and there is a single assessment regime under the Food and Drugs Act to assess the environmental and health risks of drugs.
What I would like to ask you is that it seems to be that health professionals are still critical of this amended CEPA, and they suggest prioritization of the prohibition of toxic substances with timelines and safer substitution. I would like to know if you understand or if you could help us understand what they might be referring to? Perhaps if the other two witnesses might have comments on that as well, I’d appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Praznik: Thank you, senator, for that. To put things in context, under the broad definition of “drug” in the Food and Drugs Act, you can include everything from a prescription pharmaceutical treating cancer to a lipstick with a sunscreen in it. One of the reforms of Health Canada right now — the self-care framework — is to take all those low-risk, non-prescription drugs, natural health products and cosmetics and bring them together under a common risk-based regulatory system called the self-care framework. When people are talking about those systems, I think it’s important if there’s a focus on the high-risk prescription drug area versus the low-risk self-care area. That’s important.
Second, the regimes that govern those self-care products are all what I would call right-to-safe product regimes. They all require that for a product to go to the market, they must be safe from a human health perspective when used as intended. That’s very important. We do know in a risk-based model, a substance that may have a potential hazard may not be a hazard based on how it’s used, the volume, all of those kinds of things, and that’s part of the assessment.
It’s important to separate those two particular concerns and ensure that we’re applying the right regulatory framework to the right level of risk.
We’ve had the long experience of how the two acts interact in the Chemicals Management Plan, and we fully agree and are well experienced with all substances being assessed from both a human health and an environmental perspective. What concerns us is that once you’ve made that assessment, where do you administer and enforce the regulation? Health Canada already has a large, significant and well-known administrative and enforcement mechanism. It has a thing called the hot list of prohibited and restricted ingredients and uses international nomenclature. We would hope that environmental rules are applied to and administered through that same system rather than creating another administrative system in Environment Canada.
Senator Seidman: I’d like to ask if Mr. Masterson or Mr. LeRoux have a comment on that particular issue. Thank you.
Mr. LeRoux: On the timeline situation, this bill suggests that there be a time clock where there is a specific amount of time to do an assessment. As we know, after working on this for a number of years under CMP, it may take a lot longer than we anticipate. It may take a lot more information than officials have now. This is an iterative process that goes on for quite some time. To stop the assessment when you don’t have all the facts and either declare toxic or non-toxic would not be fair, would not be right and would not be a stable or predictable or transparent way to go forward.
In terms of substitutions you mentioned, yes, we are already looking at substitutions. We use a lot. Bio-based materials are a big part of our industry now, and green chemistry — a lot of investment in R&D. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent. We want to go down that road. We’re on that ship with everybody, getting greener and more environmentally friendly, but it costs a lot of money to do the research and to find the formulations that work with the performance characteristics that consumers want. That’s where we are. When you ask government to suggest a substitution, they cannot because of the regulation as it’s structured, but we are looking for that. Informed substitutions are certainly on our agenda.
I’ll say one more thing. Our industry also knows what the SVHCs — the substances of very high concern — are. We have members who have a list of those substances. They know it and they have a plan to get out beyond regulation to remove those substances from their arsenal.
We’re trying to get out ahead. All the sustainability reports that our members put out and timelines for reducing substances of concern over the next few years are very impressive, and everybody is on board with that.
Senator Sorensen: This is for Mr. Masterson as well. I want to make reference to the section in your document on creating a safety valve that would provide the Governor-in-Council the right to suspend the application of certain provisions of the act during times of emergency or exceptional circumstances.
I know you’ve mentioned COVID-19. Maybe elaborate on that as to what the ideal would have been during that emergency and what other types of emergencies would prevent companies from meeting their CEPA requirements and how could that be done without risking the health and safety of Canadians?
Mr. Masterson: This is an issue that came up unique to the federal government under COVID. Think of something like a large chemical facility and perhaps you have to do specific types of sampling or monitoring and you require external third parties to come into the facility. However, if the law prevents third parties from moving around the country and entering your site, it’s very difficult to do those activities.
In some provinces, governments were able to provide an amendment — let’s call it a safety valve — that said you don’t have to do this for a certain amount of time. That wasn’t available. So you ran the risk and it’s likely that companies were contravening the regulatory requirements during that brief period.
So what is the next emergency? Could any of us have predicted COVID? Absolutely not. We don’t know what it is, but we think there ought to be some sort of a measure there with a very high test that says in unique, unusual and national emergency circumstances, the minister or the Governor-in-Council has the right to suspend certain provisions of this act for temporary purposes only.
The Chair: We have 13 minutes left, so if we can have short questions and even shorter answers, that would be appreciated.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: My question is for Mr. LeRoux. You mentioned that you work closely with the auto industry. I’m interested in the unintended consequences of the bill.
It has been said that decisions in Canada will be based on science. However, we have seen during this pandemic that the interpretation of science in the United States and Canada is not always the same. Could there be any impact on the competitiveness of the auto industry? Regulations or decisions could be different in Canada and the United States, which could affect the supply chain of the highly integrated North American auto industry.
[English]
Mr. LeRoux: One hundred per cent. That is always a concern of our industry. There’s a lot of misalignment between Canada’s regulations and those of the United States, and we know why in the previous four years, but they’re trying to get that back on track. However, it does impact us significantly. We’re seeing a lot of companies move manufacturing and production to the United States from Canada, but they’re still shipping products to Canada. That’s because of the cost structure.
Someone mentioned the chemical regulations. Canada has 50,000 chemical regulations, as the Treasury Board noted in 2018, and the Chamber of Commerce, 300,000 with 50,000 for chemicals alone in Canada. So yes, it has an impact on how we are shipping goods to Canada versus what is being produced in Canada. Sadly, some manufacturing is lost here, but the volume stays the same. I don’t think it should impact because U.S. companies are still subject to the same regulations in terms of what they ship to Canada from the United States, so there won’t be any problem there.
The biggest problem is are we aligned with them when 10% of the product coming off the line in the United States is Canada’s production. So the more production we have here, the better. If we don’t align the regulations, then we could have 5% coming off the line to products that come to Canada. They won’t have access to materials for coatings on vehicles or whatever. I would say automotive coatings have 30% less solvent-based product than it had in the past.
Senator Arnot: This is to each witness, and thank you for coming today. You’ve all expressed concern over the watch list. Is there a way that industry can support the watch list? You’ve asked to, I think, eliminate it altogether. Is there a compromise remedy or a better definition on threshold to get on that watch list? Is that an area that you can provide some specific answers or recommendations?
Mr. Praznik: First of all, we haven’t opposed the watch list. Again, it’s the details about how it’s used. I can tell you as a former health minister in Manitoba, I like the idea of a red light, green light, yellow light.
The watch list has the potential to become a list on which a substance for which there’s concern can be placed, and you can have a plan to monitor, follow and get more information on it. As an industry association, if properly used and developed, we think the watch list can be a very effective tool. I wouldn’t write it off, nor have we indicated that we oppose it. We just have some questions about how it will be developed.
Mr. Masterson: I’d like to ask Danielle Morrison to respond to this. She’s been in discussions with the departmental officials with this at great length.
Danielle Morrison, Policy Manager, Chemical Health, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada: Our concern with the watch list is about the overlap, not only with CEPA Schedule 1 — both Parts 1 and 2 — but also the existing array of Significant New Activity orders, or SNAcs, which are in place where there’s a new exposure of concern in Canada. Any risks posed by a new exposure would be assessed through a significant new activity notice.
With CEPA Schedule 1 — both parts — the current criterion is “may have harmful effects.” We just need more clarity in terms of what that means, in terms of the overlap and then clear mechanisms to get on and off the list. That would provide certainty to industry in terms of the pathway.
Mr. Masterson: I might add, even with the appearance by the departmental officials last week, my summary of what I heard from them is they aren’t sure what this means. They see that it’s redundant, they’re uncertain of its value and contribution and how it would be effectively implemented. There are a lot of questions here, not just from industry but from all participants.
Mr. LeRoux: I would concur with the previous two colleagues. If you put something on a watch list that has the potential of becoming toxic in the future, then that just tells everybody that chemical is toxic, and every product that contains that is perceived as a bad product in the eyes of consumers. So that just won’t work. If you arbitrarily say if something has the potential to become toxic in the future, then you’re going to have the biggest list you ever saw.
I would agree that the SNAc list that’s already in place does that. Now, if you have a new use for a chemical already in commerce and you use it for some other purpose than currently being used, then that goes on a list with the intent to control any potential risk going forward. That works. I don’t see why we need to add more.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much to our witnesses today. I noticed that all three of you said that you are in agreement with the science-based, risk-assessment approach, but then there are some “buts,” that this is overly cumbersome and that this could be heavy. Can you explain, for the full risk assessment, who is in charge of doing that? How long does it take? What is the acceptable risk level that makes something move from one list to another list?
Mr. Masterson: Yes. It’s a complicated question. First is the question of how long it takes. There’s a published maximum in the current act, and the proposal is to shorten that. Again, we would say that you have the ability to shorten it now; just provide more resources. That’s not necessarily easy.
The government, through the risk assessment, makes a science-based judgment. It’s not elected officials. It’s not policy specialists. It’s not industry. It’s the scientists who decide whether the substance in question poses an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. You’re best to ask representatives of Health Canada, in particular the scientists themselves, how they make those judgments.
Mr. LeRoux: I would say we don’t have any “buts,” madam. The system is in place, as we’ve said, and it has been working. Now, there’s some suggestion that we want to change what has been working in some manner. We’re saying that may not be the best way to do it. The SNAc list is there. In terms of doing these chemical assessments, they have to provide robust data for doing that. They gather data from other jurisdictions and from academia. Most of the information comes from industry because industry has the data. They supply it in a mandatory way under section 71 of CEPA, and sometimes it is non-mandatory.
We want them to have all the data. We just don’t want to say, “Let’s look at something maybe in the future that is not toxic now but may become toxic.” That goes too far, and officials in Ottawa are overwhelmed already with the chemicals being assessed. So is industry. Ninety per cent of the staff time for me, working with technical committees, is on the Chemicals Management Plan. It’s very onerous. We’re trying to make sure that they have all the data they need. I wouldn’t say there are any “buts.” There are already new ongoing initiatives, like new approach methodologies, looking at informed substitution.
There are all kinds of initiatives that the officials already said they want, and they are doing a good job trying to raise the bar even higher. We support them on that. That’s happening. We don’t really need the bill to do that because I think that it is already under way. Any more lack of clarity around that just makes everything more difficult to do.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’ll ask the same question as Senator Gignac, but for the cosmetics industry.
Do you anticipate any negative effects… The cosmetics industry is very strong in Europe, particularly because standards are respected and the precautionary principle is used, as in France. Do you anticipate any difficulties in Canada, particularly for this industry, compared to European countries or the United States?
The Chair: Who is your question mainly directed to?
Senator Carignan: The Cosmetics Alliance Canada.
[English]
Mr. Praznik: Thank you very much, senator. First of all, our industry has lived very successfully with the Chemicals Management Plan over the last decade that has been assessing our ingredients for both human health and the environment.
The previous question talked about health. I remind people that, in finished products, they must be safe when used as intended. That is the law. We have a very strict regulatory regime to ensure that our products are safe for consumers.
With respect to Europe, Europe has its REACH program which is very significant — like the Chemicals Management Plan — for reviewing substances. There is a difference between the Canadian and European plans, and I think it’s a significant one. Under our Chemicals Management Plan, when one had a theoretical risk, it usually triggered a real world assessment. So if in theory something was potentially a hazard or a risk that needed to be managed, we would look at the real world circumstances to confirm that it in fact was. In Europe, regrettably, their system of theoretical risk would tend to trigger regulatory action whether or not there was a real-world problem. That’s why the Canadian Chemicals Management Plan has been hailed around the world as world leading, and this bill continues to build upon it. We quite welcome it.
We’re also very engaged; our industry has been a world leader in working with the development of non-animal testing methods. We’ve had that ban in Europe for going on 20 years. There’s been huge investment. In fact, I sit on the board of directors of a new collaboration to not only develop further alternatives but also to provide education and work for regulatory acceptance. I sit on that board with representatives of the Humane Society and Cruelty Free International. We’ve really been leaders in that particular area, so I don’t see this as a problem.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. That ends the first part of our meeting with Darren Praznik and Beta Montemayor of the Cosmetics Alliance Canada, Mr. Masterson and Ms. Morrison of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, and J. Gary LeRoux of the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association.
Thank you very much to all of you for sharing your knowledge and opinions. We appreciate it very much.
We will now move on to our second panel of witnesses.
We welcome, from Dow Chemical Company (Canada), Scott Thurlow, Senior Advisor, Government Affairs. From the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, we welcome Shannon Coombs, President. From Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, we welcome Allison Bernholtz, Manager, Environment and Industrial Policy, as well as Mathew Wilson, Senior Vice President, Policy, Government Relations and Ontario Division.
Welcome, everyone, and thank you for accepting our invitation.
[English]
W. Scott Thurlow, Senior Advisor, Government Affairs, Dow Chemical Company (Canada): Good morning, chairman and senators. I am pleased to be joining you today to speak to you about Bill S-5.
I am here on behalf of Dow Chemical Canada. Dow operates in over 30 countries and we strive to be the most innovative, customer-centric, inclusive and sustainable material science company in the world. Given our global footprint, our company has a great deal of experience on the issues of chemical management.
From the time that CEPA was proclaimed into law and the subsequent advent of the Chemicals Management Plan, the risk-based approach at the heart of Canada’s management of chemical substances has been of great interest to an array of stakeholders.
You don’t need me to repeat the history of the CMP provided to you by the minister and Mr. Masterson, but as a company that operates globally, let me affirm to this committee that the CMP is, in fact, the global gold standard for chemical management because of the transparent, conspicuous and robust public consultation that it affords all stakeholders throughout the regulatory process. That public accountability is a key part of ensuring that Canadians maintain confidence in the products that they use.
Bill S-5 does a lot of important things, but the most important is that it sets the stage for the next phase of chemical management in Canada. If Bill S-5 passes, it mandates the ministers to engage with stakeholders to establish the new set of regulatory priorities.
There is much to talk about in this space, and I would welcome questions on the current priority setting mechanisms as well as our support for an amendment I have affectionately dubbed the “Dear Minister” clause.
On a substantive level, I would like to draw the committee’s attention to the new Schedule 1. A common understanding is important to building confidence in chemical management. To be clear, many of the substances on the current Schedule 1 are not, colloquially speaking, toxic in the ordinary sense of the word. In fact, there are essential nutrients on that list. It is only certain exposures to some substances that potentially have an adverse effect. Recognizing that is key.
The split of the list into two categories ostensibly codifies a practice found in the current prohibition regulations. How a substance is sent to Schedule 1, Part 1 of the list — the substances of highest risk — is an important discussion and requires extensive consultation.
Knowing that a priority will be given to prohibition, we must create a system that recognizes the role of transformative chemistry in the economy. I would welcome questions from senators on the perils of using hazard markers for substance deselection without appropriate scientific context and exceptions.
Industry’s support for this model is predicated on certain key exceptions. If time permits, I would be pleased to provide examples where a substance that is hazardous in one state may not be a concern at all in another.
On the previous panel, there was a question about confidential business information and what should be put into the public domain. To be clear, industry provides a great deal of information to the government. We are very confident that the government will hold that information and use that information to protect the health and safety of Canadians. Confidential business information isn’t only about CEPA; it’s about how the federal government holds all business confidential information.
Finally, I would like to flag the so-called watch list which is being proposed by the ministers. Frankly, I’m not sure why it’s needed other than to defame chemistries that have been through the risk assessment process. If the government wants to send a message to industry about the use of a substance and to warn against it, a Significant New Activity notice accomplishes this task nicely. The government has this power already. If a SNAc is created for a substance, industry would need permission from the government before a substance is approved for a new use or at significantly increased volumes. That speaks loudly, I can assure you.
Senators, this is an area that needs closer inspection, including the process for how a substance gets on and off this list. I welcome questions from this committee on any of the aspects that I’ve highlighted here and would like to support the government’s essential comprehensive reform package. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Coombs, did you want to add something?
Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association: Good day, Mr. Chair and senators. It’s a pleasure to be here today and to provide our perspective on the committee’s review of Bill S-5, the legislative package to amend CEPA.
For 24 years, I have proudly represented the many accomplishments of this proactive and responsible industry; for 19 of those, I have been president. The last two years of my tenure at the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association have been a very challenging but rewarding time for industry and government as we’ve collectively delivered disinfectants, sanitizers, hand sanitizers and general purpose cleaners to ensure Canadians had the products to keep themselves safe, whether it be at the home, the workplace or at schools. We were founding members of the Canadian Hand-Sanitizers Manufacturing Exchange and were able to assist companies in sourcing materials, ingredients and packaging to manufacture hand sanitizers during the pandemic.
On the disinfectant and sanitizer front, we work directly with Health Canada to address shortages of ingredients, bottles and other materials and collaborated on policies to enable new and innovative technologies to be brought to the Canadian market.
I’d like to thank all the senators who follow us on Twitter and have retweeted us in the last 25 months as we have promoted washing your hands and numerous important COVID advisories such as fraudulent claims and not to make a do-it-yourself hand sanitizer during the pandemic. Getting good, factual and useful information to consumers during the pandemic was a key priority for our association.
Today I provided a one pager, Imagine Life Without Us, which illustrates the types of products the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association represents. We are a national trade association representing 39 member companies across the country — a $20 billion industry equitably employing 12,000 Canadians in over 82 facilities.
I’d like to offer a quick outline of how the act works for our industry, the success of the world-leading Chemicals Management Plan under CEPA and our support for the legislation as Bill S-5 moving forward.
What is CEPA and why is it important to the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association and our member companies? CEPA is an important and sophisticated 400-page piece of legislation in Canada that respects the pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. In 1999, after an exhaustive review by your predecessors in Parliament, the Environment Committee reviewed over 550 proposed amendments outside the scope of the bill and included 150 in the final bill after 93 hours of review. That has led us to some significant outcomes for Canadians.
One such outcome is the Chemicals Management Plan, referred to as the CMP, which is a science-based risk assessment program for chemicals and their management. In short, CEPA governs our ingredients, both existing and new. We have supported the world-leading government program — CMP — since its formal announcement in 2006, and we have strived as an industry to ensure our pillars of sound science, due process and effective communications have been embraced by the program. Canadians should be proud of this program. Our country is a global leader in how substances are assessed and managed regardless of where that chemical is used. I would be pleased to discuss any questions senators may have.
We were also pleased to see the long-awaited amendments to CEPA tabled on February 9 in the Senate. This package is a thoughtful proposal of many views, which include the 2006 and 2016 Parliamentary reviews, and include current policies that are being codified and some bold thinking to modernize the act.
What does it codify or clarify from existing policy to legislation? It’s the right to a healthy environment, vulnerable populations, cumulative effects and information regarding the risk of toxic substances, including labelling. What’s new? The best-placed act, renaming Schedule 1, resolution of the In Commerce List and the watch list.
In closing, the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association has been and remains committed to working with the government on supporting an efficient and effective legislative regulatory framework for CEPA.
The bill strikes an important balance of codifying improved principles and the health and safety of Canadians and the environment remains paramount. I look forward to any of the questions that senators may have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Bernholtz.
Allison Bernholtz, Manager, Environment and Industrial Policy, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters: Honourable senators, I am honoured to be here to address the committee on behalf of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters and our association’s 2,500 direct members.
I am here today to express our support for Bill S-5. Specifically, we strongly support [Technical difficulties] continued use of risk-based chemicals management. I will outline for you today why this approach is crucial for Canadian manufacturers, our environment and the continued health and safety of all Canadians.
Manufacturing is one of the largest business sectors in Canada with companies of all sizes and employees in nearly every community across the country. Our members are committed to operating in a clean, healthy environment. In our path to achieving a net-zero economy, it is manufacturers who are being called upon to create and innovate products and offer safe, environmentally conscious alternatives to meet rising consumer demands for more sustainable goods. The chemical compositions in these products must be assessed and approved in the safest and most reliable way possible while not compromising efficacy and function of the product.
While we do have some concerns with Bill S-5 that are more relevant to be addressed through consultation during implementation of the act, we believe that overall, in its current form, the Bill S-5 amendments to CEPA meet these standards by maintaining the risk-based approach to chemical management. This approach is the safest and most reliable standard for a safe and healthy environment for Canadians. This is a top priority for Canadian manufacturers when creating, innovating upon and making products essential to our everyday lives.
Now that I have continued to sing its praises, what is the risk-based approach? The risk-based approach considers and calculates whether or not a risk of exposure to a potential hazard would occur, in what circumstances these risks may occur and the likelihood of those risks occurring. The risk-based approach to chemical management, maintained by Bill S-5, recognizes the need for allowing experts discretion to consider all the evidence when scientifically evaluating substances and conducting risk assessment and risk management activities. For Canadians, it is important that we know with certainty that substances used and enhanced by manufacturers have undergone and would pass regulatory rigour. This will continue to provide Canadians with confidence in the products they use.
Lastly, as mentioned, while Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters would generally be pleased to see Bill S-5 move forward as is, we do have additional recommendations that are more relevant to be addressed through consultations during the implementation stage of the act. Among these recommendations, we stress that it is critical that imports to Canada are held to the same standards as products manufactured locally. To ensure fair competition between Canadian and foreign companies, and to protect the health and safety of Canadians, standards of products imported into Canada and purchased by Canadians must be identical. In other words, Canada should ensure that its manufacturers can compete on as level a playing field as possible. Within Canada, we should have confidence that the products we purchase and rely upon have met certain testing standards. This is why, among our recommendations for the implementation stage of this legislation, we urge that it is important to design policies and regulations that clearly outline that the standards of imported products must meet the same high standards as those made locally.
In closing, I encourage you to pass Bill S-5 in its current form. By maintaining the risk-based approach to risk assessments and risk management, the bill overall endeavours to ensure safe and proper regulatory adherence to protect the health and safety of Canadians and our environment — a top priority for Canadian manufacturers.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before you today, and I welcome any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much to our witnesses. My question is for Mr. Thurlow from Dow Chemical. I would like to go back to the watch list you mentioned.
It’s understood that the Canadian system is less strict than the European system. We assess the risks rather than use the precautionary principle. This is already a more acceptable system for companies.
However, what I don’t understand is the resistance to this watch list, and especially to the fact that it includes substances that could, according to different indices, become toxic or will have to be re-evaluated in case they are toxic. It seems to me that this is how things work when science advances.
I will use another example: cigarettes. For a long time, people thought that smoking cigarettes wasn’t dangerous. In addition, there is a whole period of uncertainty as to whether the substance is dangerous or not. So if you don’t put a substance on a list and say, “Be careful. This substance could be toxic or dangerous, either for the environment or for people,” it seems to me that we are going against the science that evolves over time.
[English]
Mr. Thurlow: Thank you very much for the question, senator. There is really nothing inappropriate in the framing of the question that you had.
Our concern has always been the redundancy that the watch list creates. The government already has all of the powers necessary to restrict those types of chemistries and to identify those types of chemistries. They are just creating yet another list to add these chemistries to. As Mr. LeRoux said in the previous presentation, and as Mr. Moffet said in his presentation on April 28, there is a redundancy built into the mechanisms that exist right now.
A Significant New Activity notice that conspicuously enumerates the chemistries will ensure that the exposure levels in Canada do not change. As I said in my testimony, if you want to send a signal to industry that a particular chemistry will not be accepted in Canada, a Significant New Activity notice does a really good job at that because it creates a very significant regulatory hurdle to adding it and using it in a larger volume than is currently being used in Canada, if it is being used in Canada at all.
That is the final point that I want to make about the watch list. If something is found to not be in commerce in Canada and it has a SNAc added to it, it is a very high burden to start using that substance.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’d like to clarify a point. Isn’t the list more transparent than the other way you are talking about to flag a potential problem? We are talking here about transparency and the fact that consumers or others could consult this list, which would list everything.
Mr. Thurlow: Consumers and others can consult the Significant New Activity provisions. It is all on the public website.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is it as easy to consult? I don’t think so.
Mr. Thurlow: I think you need a road map to do the entire website of the chemical substances, but that is an academic concern. I do not believe that a conspicuous watch list would be any easier to discover than the other aspects on that website.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much to our witnesses for being with us this morning. My question will be for Mr. Thurlow. I will take you up on your offer to explain our current priority setting mechanisms. As I mentioned to the witnesses in the previous panel, priority setting mechanisms will be critical, and health professionals have expressed a real concern about this with the need for timelines and safer substitutions.
If you could speak on what you offered to speak on, that is current priority setting mechanisms, that would be great, thanks.
Mr. Thurlow: I am happy to help, senator. We have a very robust system built into the act right now. There are legislative markers that require the ministers to do examinations of substances based on the activities of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations.
For example, if there is an invasive risk-management instrument that is advanced by another jurisdiction, the government is required to look at that to see if it would be appropriate to do that in Canada.
In my testimony, I referred to the “Dear Minister” clause. There is currently no public accountability mechanism where Scott Thurlow could put up his hand and say, “Minister, I would like you to look at the following substance.” We think this is a very important tool, but it is a tool, right? And the ministers have the discretion to say, “No, we’re not going to do this, and the reason we’re not going to do this is we just did it last year or we just did it two years ago, or there aren’t a lot of uses of that substance in Canada.”
This kind of goes back to the data issue. The Government of Canada holds a lot of data. They look at these substances and make determinations about where there could be exposures of concern.
I would like to see that Industrial Research Assistance Program process, that priority process extend a little bit longer because that would give industry the lead time it needs to do the testing it needs to respond to any concerns about the specific hazard markers that might be associated with the particular chemistry.
Currently, we have a rough guesstimate about what will be advanced in the next 18 to 24 months, but if we could make that a little stronger and a little easier to understand, it might help us generate additional data.
Senator Seidman: In our previous panel, I believe it was Mr. LeRoux who expressed a concern about the timelines and that, in fact, the timeline, if it was too short, things would get shut down before proper decisions were made.
Mr. Thurlow, do you have something to add to that?
Mr. Thurlow: There are two types of timelines. The first are the government timelines, and the second are the industry timelines. We have a cabinet directive for streamlining regulation and regulatory policy that’s important to follow. It is established for a reason: to make sure that Canada’s obligations both dealing with provinces and dealing with international partners are being met.
The other point on timelines is that doing scientific assessments takes time. So if you are given a very short window to complete a responsive toxicological assessment, it is, at times, very difficult to meet those timelines.
From time to time, you see big gluts of data demands drop, usually right before Christmas actually. Then you have a very short window to respond to all of these different consultations at the same time. If we could make that a little bit more predictable, that would allow us to share that paper burden and to do a little bit better with planning for what scientific work industry needs to do.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: This question is for everyone, all three witnesses, because I want to gauge how widespread the concern on the watch list is with other witnesses.
Mr. Thurlow, your position on the watch list is that it is redundant and the Significant New Activity notice would cover the issue. If you accept that the thesis of a watch list is going to be in place and you will have to live with it, is there a compromise remedy that you could put forward to either better define the threshold or the mechanism to get on or off the watch list, which would be respectful of that thesis but also respectful of the concern you are voicing?
Mr. Thurlow: Thank you very much, senator, for the question.
Certainly, there is going to be a lot of discussion and consultation about both the use and the way substances get on and off that list. My understanding, based on the way it has been described to me by officials, is that the watch list is specifically for substances that have gone through the risk assessment process and have been found specifically not to have an exposure of concern in Canada. Then there are substances that bear hazard markers for which, if there is a new exposure, that it could become toxic in the future.
There are two responses to that. The first one is the Significant New Activity notice freezes it in time. The second is the actual language of section 64 deals with that very subject as well.
So if the ministers conduct a risk assessment, they complete the risk assessment and they find that it is not toxic, and then in the future there is a new exposure, they could carry out that risk assessment again.
I think the SNAc does the job at sending the signal, but I will happily engage in consultations with the ministers to ensure that there is a good pathway on and off that watch list.
Ms. Bernholtz: I will answer next. Thank you for the question, senator.
I echo Mr. Thurlow’s thoughts that generally we don’t believe that the watch list does anything that Significant New Activity notices do not already do. Overall, our position is we just want clarity for industry. I believe Danielle Morrison actually raised this exact point in the last panel, but we would need a clear mechanism for how a substance gets added to or gets removed from the watch list, and industry just needs this clarity. As mentioned in my opening statement, ultimately, we do believe that Bill S-5 is fair and appropriate, and that this is a detail that can be honed during the implementation stage of the legislation.
The Chair: Ms. Coombs, did you want to add something?
Ms. Coombs: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the question. I think that one of the things we could do is stop calling it the watch list. I think that would go a long way. That seems to be causing some angst because we do have a list, a publicly available list of Significant New Activities and those can be accessed by the public. I think that, going forward, the New Substances or the SNAc provisions will be addressed, and also there will be a provision placed on industry to be able to communicate that down through the supply chain.
So there are some specific criteria that I think already exists and in the future will be further developed, and that could be the way going forward. I think we just need to start changing the way we characterize this as part of the CEPA lexicon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Kutcher: My questions are to Ms. Bernholtz. How are products that are currently imported into Canada assessed for harm to environment and health?
Ms. Bernholtz: The points that I believe I was making were not necessarily targeting or saying that there is a certain concern. It was more just that we want it outlined clearly so that there is no uncertainty that imports to Canada will be held to the same standard as products manufactured locally. That wasn’t meant as a call out of anything that wasn’t happening. We just want it to be clear.
Senator Kutcher: I’m sorry. I wasn’t calling you out.
Ms. Bernholtz: And I’m not calling anyone else out.
Senator Kutcher: I’m just asking you how it’s done.
Ms. Bernholtz: I think right away building into the act direct, specific language that we have these testing procedures that we have here, and something imported into Canada would have to meet those same standards. We would want that written directly into the act.
Senator Kutcher: Do you know who does that assessment right now?
Ms. Bernholtz: Unfortunately, that is something that I would have to check and get back to you. Ultimately, we would want clear language just to ensure that if we are imposing these standards, these standards would be imposed not just on what’s made locally but anything that’s being made, used and consumed in Canada.
Senator Kutcher: Sure. Thank you for that. The purpose of the question was to try to determine whether Canada has the capacity with the increased scrutiny under Bill S-5 for substances for toxicity and damage to health and environment to be able to do this kind of assessment for imported products.
Ms. Bernholtz: Right. Sorry, I see that Ms. Coombs has her hand up, so I will answer quickly and then yield to Ms. Coombs. I am unsure regulatory-wise how that would be put in place, but ultimately we would want clear language and expect that if we are setting these high standards for our health and safety, then we would expect these high standards and it doesn’t matter where a product is made.
I will yield to Shannon. I did see your hand.
Ms. Coombs: Mr. Chair, if I could help. As the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association understands, the current requirement is that all of our substances must meet CEPA, and all of our finished products must meet the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, the Food and Drugs Act and the Pest Control Products Act. I think that what Bill S-5 does is it brings to light the best-placed act and the best-placed minister so it can address those importation issues through other legislative means. Does that help?
Mr. Thurlow: And if I could support Ms. Coombs —
The Chair: Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: I think I tend to agree with you that there is a lot of information and that data is difficult to access. I also know that Europe and the U.S. have a lot more information, which is easier to navigate. To tell you the truth, as a professor of environmental engineering, when I want to know about the toxicity of a substance, I go to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or to the European equivalent because it is very difficult to find it in Canada.
I am thinking of an amendment that facilitates access to this information. But having said so, I have an issue with revealing certain information. I know by heart every detail of what happened in Lac-Mégantic, and I was appalled that the firefighters did not know which substances were in those wagons. They risked their lives. We had to wait until the Transportation Safety Board said what was in those wagons when everybody should have known what was in these wagons and that the substance was dangerous.
How can we repair this situation? According to you, what would be the best way of repairing this situation, of making it accessible — the very important information for the health of humans and for the environment?
Mr. Thurlow: I am not familiar with the specifics that you are mentioning, Senator Galvez, but I am very surprised that the local communities through which the rail would be operating would not have that information. That is certainly a part of the Responsible Care codes. For our substances, the workplace requirements are conspicuous, particularly on the transportation of dangerous goods.
I cannot comment on the specifics of that one, but that is certainly not consistent with our Responsible Care principles.
Just quickly, I wanted to support Ms. Coombs’ answer from before. Absolutely, the products on the shelves have to comply. The question, Senator Kutcher, is who will ensure that they comply? Is it the importer of record, or is there a role for the Canada Border Services Agency as well?
Senator Galvez: Ms. Bernholtz, everyone is saying that there is information available but it is difficult to find. How can we solve this issue of accessing the data more easily so that the public can know?
Ms. Bernholtz: Thank you. I certainly echo what Mr. Thurlow said. Again, with that story, I am surprised that situation occurred. That situation should not have occurred. Ultimately, when we’re mentioning confidential business information, we’re talking more in terms of trade secrets, not a situation like that.
Ms. Coombs: Yes. Thank you. I think the senator raises a really good point about accessing the Canadian — the “.ca” — website. It is a bit challenging trying to find information on there about substances. I consider myself fairly well versed in the chemical world. When I am looking for stuff, I, too, am struggling to find things. Any way that we can consolidate any of the information around CEPA and the substances to provide Canadians easy access to factual information would be key. We do promote the CMP process on our Healthy Cleaning 101 website as well.
Senator Gignac: My question is for Mr. Thurlow from Dow Chemical Canada. Your company operates in 30 different countries, I understand. The chemical industries are very integrated worldwide. I understand the watch list bothers you, or let’s say that you are not very comfortable. By the same token, I assume that the minister has done his homework — or at least the officials have done their homework. Is this something that exists in other countries, or would it be a precedent to have an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country or a minister who creates a watch list for your industry?
Mr. Thurlow: I am happy to be corrected on this point, but to the best of my knowledge, we do not have another similar list like that in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
I also have to remind senators that Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan is unique in that it falls under the constitutional head of authority for the criminal law power. When we are looking at all the other jurisdictions, we have to remember that their constitutional heads of authority or their regulatory systems will follow a different legal tradition. They may not have the criminal law as the background for why they manage chemicals. Okay?
That having been said, as Mr. Masterson and the minister have said, Canada is the global gold standard in terms of the sheer volume of substances that we have assessed, categorized and risk-managed.
If I am to be corrected by someone in the ministry that there is a watch list in another jurisdiction, I will happily accept that, but I do not believe that it exists.
The Chair: If I may interrupt, Senator Gignac, this is an important issue for many senators relative to the ease of getting information and whether there is a watch list.
Mr. Thurlow, you are saying that, to the best of your knowledge, you do not think so. You don’t think there is another Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country with a list. Could I ask you to check up on that answer and send us confirmation in writing? Does it exist anywhere else? What solutions have other countries perhaps chosen to make it more transparent? Could I ask you to respond in writing and with certainty to that question?
Mr. Thurlow: I would be pleased to do so. I would also point out that we have heard mention of the European system. The European system actually places the onus on industry to assess all of their chemistries and then present that information to the member states as to whether the chemistries should be regulated.
I much prefer the Canadian model where it is actually the Government of Canada that does that assessment and advances the regulatory tool. That creates a greater confidence, certainly, in the citizenry for why that system exists. I will undertake, Mr. Chair, to do exactly that.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: A new concept is being presented. Therefore, I would really like to know. I am in favour of Bill S-6. However, since it’s new, we are always on the lookout for unintended consequences that could occur. I will wait for the answers, and we will also ask the department to do its homework. I would like that information.
[English]
The Chair: We are finished with the questions, so I want to thank the panel for sharing their knowledge, assisting us to understand this proposed act and for being with us today.
We will now move in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)