Environment committee  There are two things. First, as we are out of time, I just want to mention that we do have a full submission, which is currently being translated. It will be available to you within a day or two. Second, the concern from industry is that their substances will be “stigmatized”, which I think is their term, by the use of the word “toxic”.

Environment committee  Thank you, Chair. I would add that the fundamental process governing the assessment is a substance-by-substance approach, which by its nature means that cumulative effect considerations are not adequately addressed.

Environment committee  Absolutely.

Environment committee  Absolutely. There is a problem of missing data, or as the substances are referred to, “the uncertain substances”, because we don't know. That's an issue primarily with the existing substances that have just undergone the categorization process. I would argue that even with the new substances that do have to submit a data set, as I mentioned, there are areas of that data set that could be strengthened, and one that comes to mind is chronic toxicity, which would indicate a lot of carcinogenic effects.

Environment committee  Perhaps I could just take a few seconds for myself and then have permission to pass it to Dr. Khatter. I just want to very quickly point out that not all pieces of legislation use the same test for maintaining confidentiality. For example, the Access to Information Act does not have a clause in section 15 of CEPA that refers to the damage to privacy, reputation, or to human dignity.

Environment committee  I want to reiterate what Mr. Arseneau said and highlight the fact that there is an appeal provision for companies that feel their information should have been kept confidential, but there's no comparable provision allowing appeals for the public or other interested parties who feel that information should be disclosed--at least not in the text of the act.

Environment committee  I would just make one additional point. I was involved in the new substances notification regulations on organisms that are essentially biotechnology products. In the context of that process I tried very hard, as a concerned member of the public, to find out what the protocols were on claiming confidentiality for biotechnology products, which, as you are probably aware, are a huge concern of the public.

Environment committee  Thank you. In order to speak to the pros and cons, I think we only have to look at what the historical situation has been and the direction in which other countries, such as the European countries, are moving. Through the priority substance list exercise, we've seen that it is very nearly unworkable for government to continue carrying as much of the burden as it has.

Environment committee  Perhaps I could speak to that. One of the most direct ways the precautionary principle could apply relates to the fact that there are hundreds of substances about which there is very little known information. I'm referring now to the existing substances, those that have been going through this categorization exercise, where government is trying to pull together whatever existing information there is about these substances and looking to see whether they pose a threat.

Environment committee  There are a number of areas of existing and new substances that I think could bear improvement. Certainly the onus on industry to provide data for new substances is an improvement over essentially the non-requirement that existed originally for the existing substances. There is a data set there; however, there are certainly areas where the data set could be improved, especially around chronic toxicity and children's health issues.

Environment committee  For both.

Environment committee  Could I respond? The comments around burden of proof were directed to both existing and new.

Environment committee  Good afternoon. My name is Jessica Ginsburg. I am special projects counsel at the Canadian Environmental Law Association, also known as CELA. I'd like to introduce Kapil Khatter, director of the Pollution Watch program on health and environment, which is a joint initiative of CELA and Environmental Defence.