Chemicals Management Plan Multi-Stakeholder and Partner Workshop: Summary Report (October 2024)

On this page:

• Introduction
• CMP Multi-Stakeholder and Partner Workshop
• Plan of Priorities for chemicals management in Canada
• Watch List approach
• Draft strategy to replace, reduce or refine vertebrate animal testing
• In closing

Introduction

The Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) is a Canadian government initiative aimed at reducing risks from chemical substances in food, consumer products, cosmetics, drugs, drinking water, and industrial releases. It does so by using the most appropriate management tools from a broad suite of federal laws, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Fisheries Act, and others. The CMP is delivered jointly by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Health Canada (HC).

CEPA is Canada's core environmental law, and the Government of Canada uses it to deliver on many environmental and health protection programs for the wellbeing of the environment and people in Canada. The Act provides the authorities to take action on pollution and substances that may pose a risk to human health and the environment. It provides authorities for the CMP to conduct information gathering, research, monitoring and surveillance, risk assessment, and risk management of chemical substances to protect the environment and human health.

On June 13, 2023, CEPA was amended by Bill S-5, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act. This Bill modernizes CEPA by recognizing that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided for in CEPA; strengthening Canada's chemicals management regime; and increasing transparency in the way it is administered.

To support these efforts, the Government of Canada continues to consult people in Canada, stakeholders and partners. Input from a diversity of perspectives is integral to shaping the development and implementation of initiatives resulting from a modernized CEPA.

CMP Multi-Stakeholder and Partner Workshop

On October 28 and 29, 2024, ECCC and HC convened a virtual CMP Multi-Stakeholder and Partner Workshop to consult on various initiatives supporting new requirements under CEPA, including:

• a proposed Plan of Priorities for chemicals management in Canada, including:
  • substances prioritized for assessment
  • prioritized activities or initiatives that support the assessment, control or other management of risks posed by substances
• a draft strategy to replace, reduce or refine vertebrate animal testing
• a proposed approach for implementing a Watch List (of substances capable of becoming toxic)

The virtual workshop gathered 42 representatives from industry, civil society, academia, Indigenous organizations and youth. During the workshop, government representatives presented information on each initiative to support small-group discussions among participants. Group discussions were then summarized during plenary sessions. The workshop agenda and list of participants can be found in Appendices A and B, respectively.

Throughout the workshop discussion, some overarching and cross-cutting themes emerged from stakeholder and partner input, including:

• the need for additional information, clarification and context with respect to:
  • how various initiatives and principles under a modernized CEPA are connected (for example, how will the right to a healthy environment as provided for in CEPA be applied or operationalized within the Plan of Priorities?)
  • CMP history and evolution of the program under a modernized CEPA (for example, past successes under the program, versus what is new relative to previous approaches)
  • how CMP initiatives relate, address or respond to broader initiatives (for example, climate change, biodiversity loss, Global Plastics Treaty)
  • CMP processes, criteria and rationale for prioritization, assessment and risk management, as well as details on new or planned initiatives
  • timelines for priority assessments and operationalization of CMP initiatives
• the need for plain language, clearer communications and improved accessibility to support engagement and participation of stakeholders and partners, including civil society, Indigenous groups, and the general population
• the need for strong collaboration with universities, academia, international jurisdictions, stakeholders and partners to support data sharing and best practices

What follows is a high-level summary of the key discussion points that were raised during the plenary discussions for each workshop initiative. It is intended to reflect input received from stakeholders and partners. The input received during this workshop will inform the refinement of initiatives in development under a modernized CEPA.

Plan of Priorities for chemicals management in Canada

The amendments to CEPA require that the Government establish a forward plan that among other things, outlines:

• the list of substances prioritized for assessment to determine whether they are toxic or capable of becoming toxic, and
• other activities to assess, control or manage the risks to the environment or human health posed by substances.

A proposed plan was published for a 60-day public consultation (which ended December 4, 2024).

Discussion questions:

• What are your views on the proposed activities and initiatives to support the assessment and risk management of substances?
• What additional information or considerations, if any, should be included?
• What are your views on the feasibility, advantages and challenges of assessing the list of proposed substances?
• What additional substances, key drivers, information or considerations, if any, should be included in the approach?

Summary of stakeholder and partner input

Clarifying what is new under a modernized CEPA: More emphasis is needed on what is continuing or evolving from prior approaches, versus what initiatives are new. For example, include context in terms of the history of the CMP and its successes to date; describe how the robustness of assessments are the same or different; identify differences in timelines; and explain how new approach methods will be integrated into the assessments. It's helpful to clarify what has been done in the past and whether a fresh start is being undertaken on some substances (for example, organic flame-retardant grouping).

Improving transparency: There should be more emphasis on the fact that the Plan is meant to continuously evolve over time, as well as needing clarity on some definitions, timelines and how the plan will be updated as new data, such as data on emerging substances of concern, becomes available or substances are added to the prioritized list. There is a desire to have greater elaboration and clarity on the rationale for prioritization and process of assessment; the permitted use of toxic substances; additional criteria that will be considered to classify substances as posing the highest risk; risk management tools; and how chemical mixtures and cumulative effects will be addressed by the program. More detail in each of the priority areas, illustrated with examples, would be useful. Finally, there should be more specificity about how other high priority Government initiatives (for example, Global Plastics Treaty) will be integrated into the plan.

Integrating the Right to a Healthy Environment: The right to a healthy environment provided for in CEPA should be reflected in the Plan of Priorities as a guiding principle, including how it will be considered as part of the prioritization process and throughout research, monitoring and surveillance, and risk assessment and management.

Reporting on progress: Metrics to measure success, keep track of and report on progress over time are important, and should be incorporated into the Plan. This should include, for example, outcome measures and tracking progress towards implementing new approaches to reduce animal testing (I.e., number of tests that were replaced, reduced or refined; number of animals impacted/impact in terms of animals that are no longer used for testing, etc.).

Activities to inform assessment approaches and inform future prioritization and risk management activities

Adopting a class-based approach: A class-based approach to chemicals management was generally supported. Grouping substances, especially those affecting specific health outcomes like endocrine disruption, is valuable in terms of feasibility and efficiency in risk assessment.

However, there may also be challenges associated with class-based assessments, in terms of effective grouping of substances, and the risk of creating uncertainty for industry and consumers. To avoid the risk of starting too broad and having to narrow the scope of assessments, it's important to keep the scope focussed and to be clear on which substances are included in these assessments. It's also important to give industry sufficient time to collect and submit data on substances.

Assessing endocrine disruptors, carcinogens and reproductive toxicants: It's important to take a precautionary approach and consider the pathways from initial exposures to more severe health effects for substances like endocrine disruptors, carcinogens and reproductive toxicants. Rigorous scientific inquiry and collaborations with experts are needed to better understand their exposure pathways and risks. The combined effects of these substances also need to be considered.

Navigating global supply chains: Risk management needs to be considered all the way through the supply chain, from the sourcing of raw materials to end-use and must include global trading partners to be part of the process. Supply chain transparency and traceability are important, given their global nature. However, as global supply chains continue to become more complex, transparency and traceability are difficult to achieve, and it may be necessary to consider other risk management options such as voluntary information gathering surveys, if possible.

Addressing hot spots: It's important to consider other media beyond air emissions (for example, water, soil), maximize a focus on health and environmental benefits, and define criteria for identifying a hot spot. The public needs to know where a chemical is located in the environment, especially from an Indigenous perspective.

Avoiding regrettable substitutions: It's important to avoid the cycle of substituting one harmful substance for another without fully understanding the new substance's risks. This often leads to a repetitive process of evaluating, restricting, and replacing chemicals without effectively reducing overall risk. A lower risk assessment threshold for new chemicals, especially in mixtures with unknown hazard profiles, and particularly in occupational contexts, will better capture potential risks early on. Considering essentiality can also help reduce the risk of regrettable substitutions.

Setting timelines: While timelines for assessment should be more ambitious, they need to ensure that industry has sufficient time to adapt when substitutions are required. Predictability of risk assessments for the next 5 to 6 years is helpful to support the generation of data and research on alternatives.

Improving the public request mechanism: The process to nominate substances for assessment is not considered accessible to the general public and Indigenous populations. Processes need to be tailored and more accessible to engage affected communities where they live and work. People can't engage in processes they don't understand. Using plain language, rather than technical language, is one way to address this barrier. A communication tool to show how to use processes like the public request mechanism would also be useful.

Considering additional drivers for prioritization: Whether a substance is essential should feature into considering whether it should be permitted on the market, assessed and managed. There are also questions around the weighting of inputs (for example, how emerging substances and criteria are weighed against others that have been prioritized, or how chemical characteristics, such as sensitization are being considered).

The plan should prioritize chemicals that increase sensitization and integrate multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) into risk assessments. Input from individuals with MCS experience is crucial to better understand vulnerabilities and improve prevention strategies. Additional research is needed to support these populations.

It is also important that Indigenous communities have the self-determination, or power, to determine their own priorities. For example, it was noted that 'key drivers' for the approach should include working with, and for, Indigenous communities to better support their participation in the decision-making process related to priority substances.

Research, monitoring and surveillance

Addressing data gaps: Data gaps create challenges in conducting assessments. There can be harm even in the absence of research or data to demonstrate it. An approach could be adopted for "no data, no market", that is, if there is no data on a substance, it likely should not be used in Canada.

Tracking occupational exposures: There is limited surveillance data for occupational exposures; this limits the ability to look back and identify risks. The complaints-based system is not preventive; monitoring needs to be conducted in a proactive manner to track latency versus acute exposures and harms, and to inform issues such as cumulative effects.

Tracking Indigenous exposures: More information is needed about how the Government works with Indigenous communities to monitor health effects. Communities should decide what research/monitoring is done and how.

Engagement and communication activities

Increasing collaboration: Strong collaboration across Government departments, as well as with universities, academics, industry, health and environment organizations, partners and jurisdictions is needed throughout the chemicals management cycle. This includes working with other countries, international agencies and trading partners towards supply chain transparency, data sharing and best practices. Forming an advisory group could benefit some of these objectives.

Enhancing accessibility: Using plain language throughout the plan and in communications would make it easier for stakeholders and partners to understand the complex and technical information being presented and to engage effectively. It would be helpful to have all information available in one place (a 'one-stop shop'), rather than on different websites and lists. It's important to have appropriate delivery of information to target audiences and effective ways to engage them in the process.

Informing and engaging the public: Information needs to be conveyed in ways that can be meaningful or actionable by the public, for example educating the public on the safe use of substances and what they can do to mitigate their exposure. Product labelling is one way to do this, although there may be unintended consequences with this approach.

Watch List approach

CEPA amendments require that the Government compile a list of substances that the Ministers have reason to suspect are capable of becoming toxic or have been determined to be capable of becoming toxic. This list is known as the Watch List. A proposed Watch List Approach, outlining how the list will be compiled and amended, was published for a 60-day public consultation (which ended December 4, 2024).

Discussion questions:

• What are your views on the proposed Watch List Approach?
• Are there any additional considerations or information we should be thinking about regarding the approach?

Summary of stakeholder and partner input

Objectives of a Watch List

Upholding the precautionary principle: The establishment of a Watch List could serve as a tool to inform people in Canada of substances of concern. It could also signal government intent with respect to international commitments and encourage industry to search for safer alternatives to chemicals of concern.

Considering duplication and unintended consequences: Concerns were raised about redundancy and duplication across other existing lists and tools, such as Significant New Activity provisions, and about the fact that the List is not associated with any legislative action. This raised questions about the Watch list potentially becoming a parking lot for substances. Associated unintended consequences were also flagged, such as misinterpretation of the List by the public; deselection of substances that may influence the Canadian market; the perceived burden of increased volumes of research and development for industry; data overload; and economic impacts or international trade implications.

Watch List Approach

Addressing information gaps: More information is required in the Approach document to clarify the objectives of the Watch List and why and how substances would be added to the List (for example, criteria to determine hazard versus risk). It also needs details on how substances will be added or removed and assessed; timelines; consultation requirements and how the Watch List interacts with, or relates to, other existing lists.

Ensuring openness and transparency: It should be clear that the Watch List is a communication tool. It is important that it is precise and accurate in order to have the desired effect (for example, communicate to industry and stakeholders the information they need to help them determine if some substances should be avoided, and communicate to consumers to create awareness about substances that could be of potential concern). The Watch List Approach needs to communicate in plain language, to ensure that people in Canada understand how substances get on the Watch List and how they are removed from it. The Watch List could be used by people in Canada to help them make informed consumer choices. As well, the Watch List could be helpful as a tool to communicate what the Government is doing to mitigate or address any risks.

Considering Watch List criteria: The List needs to include a level of specificity that considers the following criteria: human and environmental risks; modes of toxicity; disproportionately impacted and Indigenous populations; generational impacts and Indigenous perspectives; vulnerable environments; confidence markers to evaluate the quality of data and information associated with a substance; and uses and volumes of the substance on the Canadian market (and updates as these change).

Supporting industry: Establishing a Watch List process that minimizes the burden on industry would help promote its use. Additional data or information on suitable alternatives would support industry in avoiding regrettable substitutions. A focus beyond the identification of substances to also include specific products and uses of concern would help industry to target exposures of concern.

Draft strategy to replace, reduce or refine vertebrate animal testing

CEPA sets out a duty to, to extent practicable,use scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies to replace, reduce or refine the use of vertebrate animals when assessing the potential harms that substances may pose to human health and the environment. ECCC and HC are working to advance this work on several fronts, including through the development, standardization and incorporation of new approach methods (NAMs) into hazard and risk assessment activities. To guide continued efforts, the Government has developed a draft strategy to replace, reduce or refine vertebrate animal testing under CEPA. The draft strategy was published for a 60-day public consultation period (which ended November 13, 2024).

Discussion questions:

• What are your views on the proposed key elements of the draft strategy?
• What additional information or considerations, if any, should be included?

Summary of stakeholder and partner input

Support for the strategy

Widespread support was expressed for the draft strategy; reducing or moving away from vertebrate animal testing is viewed positively. The strategy represents an opportunity to set a gold standard for Canada.

NAMs

Addressing data concerns and challenges: Concerns were raised surrounding the use of NAMs, their ability to detect impacts on disproportionately impacted populations and environments, and whether data and results will be transparent and replicable. A potential concern is the use of data to make data; it is critically important that the source data accurately reflects the conditions and circumstances of the outcomes data. Another potential concern is resource implications; NAMs are viewed as costly but necessary.

Anticipated challenges underline the importance of developing robust methods that provide an extensive representation of different aspects being looked at in risk assessments (e.g. human health endpoints, environmental health endpoints, environmental release endpoints, etc.). Providing flexibility would also be valuable, in terms of tests and data accepted, including those involving novel approaches or investigating new mechanisms. Without flexibility, there is a risk of missing out on the potential benefits that novel or innovative techniques could bring.

Ensuring transparency: Ensuring transparency in the confidence of the methods will be critical, especially when moving away from traditional animal testing. When limitations to specific test methods are identified, there needs to be transparency about assumptions, knowledge gaps or biases that may factor into decisions. Clarifying the approach for the development and use of NAMs will influence how researchers target and organize their work.

Collaboration

Working with the scientific community and building capacity: Researchers will need to be involved. The validation of new methods will be key in ensuring credibility and will require funding. There is also a need to coordinate efforts across the scientific community.

Establishing partnerships: Through partnerships, government can be a catalyst to build capacity across the sector by: ensuring universities integrate NAMs in education; training risk assessors on the latest approaches; coordinating efforts across scientific communities; sharing data between jurisdictions; and working with funding organizations to encourage the allocation of funds in this area and support the development of NAMs.

Implementation

Ensuring feasibility: There are questions surrounding what is possible and in what timeframe, taking into consideration many factors, such as: public expectations, legal requirements, regulatory readiness, state and acceptance of the science, and jurisdictional readiness. Resources and capacity building will be instrumental in implementing these alternative approaches. This will represent a change in how the information is generated, gathered and assessed.

Bridging the gap: Animal-centric approaches that reduce negative impacts on animals while replacement tests are being developed can be considered now. Looking at essentiality; areas where testing could be reduced substantially; and more humane intervention points are some ideas of priority areas for efforts. Industry can also voluntarily commit to eliminating animal testing unless required by law (as some have already done). Priority could also be given to areas where the highest number of animals are used or most harm occurs.

In closing

The Government of Canada appreciates that stakeholders and partners took the time to participate in this workshop to share their knowledge and expertise on these issues. Key initiatives under a modernized CEPA will continue to be shaped by stakeholder and partner feedback and involvement, which contribute to moving chemicals management into the future for Canada. To stay up to date on upcoming consultation opportunities, please see our list of planned public consultation opportunities.

Related Links

• Overview: substances of potential concern – the Watch List
• Implementing the modernized Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
• Proposed Plan of Priorities under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
• A Right to a Healthy Environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
• Closed consultation: Draft strategy to replace, reduce or refine vertebrate animal testing

Annex A: Agenda

CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP) MULTI-STAKEHOLDER AND PARTNER WORKSHOP

"The future of chemicals management"

October 28-29, 2024; 1-4:30 pm EST

Workshop Objectives

• Provide updates on the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) and future directions under a modernized Canadian Environmental Protection Action Act, 1999 (CEPA)
• Engage on key new requirements under CEPA:
  • Proposed Plan of Priorities for chemicals management
  • Proposed Watch List Approach for substances capable of becoming toxic
• Facilitate networking and relationship-building among CMP stakeholders and partners, and with Government of Canada (GoC) representatives

DAY 1

DAY 2

Annex B: List of Participants