Institutional links

• Main Menu

  • Canada's Actions on Chemicals
  • Chemicals Management Plan
    • Other Initiatives
    • Stakeholder Advisory Council
    • Monitoring & Surveillance
  • The Challenge
  • The Petroleum Sector Stream Approach
  • The Substance Groupings Initiative
  • Fact Sheets & Frequently Asked Questions

• Stay Connected

  • Latest News
  • Subscribe

• Explore...

  • Acronyms
  • Glossary
  • Site Map

• Accountability

  • Proactive Disclosure

Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) - Stakeholder Advisory Council
Summary Report
Friday, May 30, 2008

Co-Chairs: George Enei (Environment Canada), Karen Lloyd (Health Canada)

Council members present: Claire Checkland, Shannon Coombs, Bruce Cran, Fe de Leon, Dennis Deveau, Peter Forristal, Dr. Kapil Khatter, Brian Kohler, Anne Kuersten, Gordon Lloyd, Dr. Keith Mussar, Darrin Noble, Dr. Donald Sharp, Jack Soule, Dr. Robin Walker, and Dr. Tim Lambert.

Regrets: Soha Kneen

Opening Remarks

The Co-Chairs opened the second Council meeting and reaffirmed their commitment to keeping CMP decision-making transparent and ensuring effective communication to the general public.  They also recognized the importance of stakeholder feedback on how the Government of Canada manages chemicals.

CMP Updates

There was a discussion among members on the importance of continued clear and timely communications.  There was also discussion of how government, civil society, and industry all have complementary but different roles to play in communications.

Some members raised the issue of occupational exposure to chemical substances, and the need to consider cumulative effects in risk assessments.

An update was provided by the Co-Chairs on the activities of the Challenge Advisory Panel, as was agreed at the last Council meeting on January 25, 2008. The application of weight of evidence and the precautionary principle were discussed.

Risk Management Presentation

A presentation on the Risk Management component of the CMP provided a menu of tools that may be used for management of chemical substances.  This presentation opened the discussion on what tools would be appropriate to use, what factors would influence the choice of tool, how to communicate risk management strategies and how to effectively engage Canadians.  The questions that guided the discussion and key points raised by Council Members are as follows: 

Discussion questions on Risk Management (RM):

1. Given the menu of RM tools, what factors should we consider in making the decision for the most appropriate RM tool(s)?

2. How can we communicate RM strategies so Canadians make informed decisions to protect their health and the environment?

3. How can we better engage Canadians on risks posed by chemicals and actions taken by industry and/or government to address those risks?

4. Other issues

Some members suggested that factors to consider for most appropriate risk management tools should include:

• Identification and elimination of chemicals deemed CEPA toxic and taking into consideration public accountability, timeframe, report on evaluation and progress.
  
  
• Consideration of occupational exposure; Conduct surveys involving labour movement and workplaces that are not unionized to access views from people working with these chemicals.
  
  
• Identification and appropriate risk assessment of substitutes.
  
  
• Pollution Prevention plans as risk management tool.

To communicate risk management strategies, some members suggested that:

• Federal government needs to inform other levels of government about CMP substances.
  
  
• Provincial and territorial communications should be strengthened, especially on consumer responsibility and the CMP.
  
  
• International engagement should be encouraged for next round of CMP priorities, and international strategies developed.
  
  
• Collaboration with an academic institution specializing in risk communications could be undertaken.

Some members indicated there is an opportunity to better engage Canadians on risks posed by chemicals. Some of the points raised included;

• Council Members could be knowledge translators.
  
  
• Development of process for deciding on societally acceptable levels of risk.
  
  
• How to engage Canadians on decisions that determine level of acceptable risk, especially for vulnerable populations.
  
  
• Hold focus groups to include vulnerable populations at risk and to work towards engaging diverse perspectives.
  
  
• Consider including a meeting with newspaper Editorial Boards to discuss CMP.

Information Presentation: The Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and CEPA

A presentation was provided on the proposed new Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

Biomonitoring Survey Q & A

An opportunity for questions and answers on the previously distributed Biomonitoring Survey was given describing how 5000 people across Canada will be surveyed with national representation from various regions (west, east, prairies, Ontario and some work with First Nations on reserves).  In future survey cycles provincial data will be examined.  Questions raised by Council Members focused on issues related to biomonitoring methods as well as vulnerable populations. There was interest in the possibility to consider time trend analysis and in the potential to examine certain targeted communities (rural/urban, northern and ethnic groups). Questions were also raised about the ability of blood and urine analysis to detect chemicals that accumulate in fatty tissue.

Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) Participation

The Council member representing AFN read the following statement on behalf of AFN and ITK:

"AFN and ITK participation at any meetings or workshops of the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) Stakeholder Advisory Council shall not be considered as Inuit or First Nations having been consulted on matters concerning the CMP and/or its implementation.  Should consultation on the CMP be required or requested, this will be initiated as necessary outside the parameters of the CMP Stakeholder Advisory Council according to protocols and agreements established by those national Aboriginal organizations concerned."

The Co-Chairs agreed that this statement would be included in the official summary of the meeting.

Meeting Summary and Closing

The Co-Chairs concluded the second meeting by thanking Council Members for their vital feedback and participation. They reflected on the day's discussion covering important lessons learned from BPA, interesting points raised on risk communications and comments on input to the biomonitoring survey.  Council Members suggested several future agenda items such as follow-up on voluntary actions from industry, proactive substitution policy, occupational health and safety, and communications.  The Co-Chairs agreed to consider these proposed items and also confirmed Domestic Substances List (DSL) Update and Medium Term Priorities as two agenda topics for the next Council Meeting.