加拿大监管景观继续流失。对于跨国公司而言，重要的是要注意以下事实：超过50％的涂料，胶粘剂，密封胶和弹性体（案例）现在已进口到加拿大。这代表了主要来自美国的大量原材料成分和成品。就需要完全遵守现有和不断发展的法规而需要的情况也至关重要。至关重要的是要确保根据联邦政府的化学管理计划（CMP）评估的大量物质具有必要的数据来对是否有毒性进行决定。在许多情况下，如果没有必要的数据，就可以无意中宣布有毒物质，并受到比必要的更高的风险管理程度，包括降低浓度限制，从而对产品性能产生负面影响或完全停止某些产品。

联邦议会环境与可持续发展委员会于6月15日提出了报告，并提出了87项关于《加拿大环境保护法》修正案的建议（CEPA，1999年）。行业最糟糕的担心已经意识到，尤其是在多数政府局势的情况下，常务委员会的多数观点可能会在政府的正式反应中引起人们的关注。目前尚不清楚是否会这样，但有一件事是：委员会上的多数成员，同一政府的国会议员以及22个非政府组织的环境游说团，将努力努力地将其建议反映在government’s response. Industry groups must now do everything possible to ensure Canada does not take a step backwards and “undermine the common approaches historically adopted by Canada and the United States on chemicals management,” as the minority opposition members on the Standing Committee accurately noted. This also takes on more significance, as both countries are about to enter negotiations to tweak NAFTA for greater regulatory alignment between the world’s two largest trading partners.

现在将展开一个程序，要求政府在120天内就如何容纳这些修正案做出回应。A key issue for industry is that the “shot clock” has already started in terms of making the case for not proceeding with many of the report’s misguided and unsubstantiated recommendations related to such things as endocrine disruptors, the precautionary principle, mandating assessment of substitutes in all cases, enhanced labelling requirements, reverse burden approach for industry on data collection, environmental justice principles enshrined in the Act, and more. This began at a time when the House of Commons was in recess for the summer and members hit the BBQ circuit, returning in mid-September. However, CPCA and other industry associations continued to work with government officials who have continually worked hard to perfect the assessment of chemicals over the past 10 years. That has made it arguably the best approach to chemicals management globally. A fact the NGO community and the Standing Committee have chosen to ignore rather than preserve a very credible and widely accepted process. A departure from the way in which Canada assesses chemicals would not be good for anyone, including those concerned about human health and the environment.

加拿大在过去十年中的化学管理方法是对商业化学品的基于证据的评估，使用最新的科学数据来确定化学物质对人类健康和环境的风险。我们认为，CMP方法完全符合当前自由政府对公共政策和计划的“基于证据的决策”的关注。行业的论点是，即使CMP流程繁重且昂贵，公司认为保护人类健康和环境是正确的选择，同时仍提供客户所期望的高度性能的产品。当然，此时的变化可能会使行业困扰，并减慢化学评估的过程，包括包括环境在内的任何人的利益。

CPCA不支持接触方法，该方法因耗时，昂贵和效率低下而受到广泛批评。加拿大环境和气候变化的官员在委员会听证会上说：“触及是一个非常耗时的过程，需要用户和生产者进行广泛的工作，但实际上比我们的决定要少得多。’ve achieved under the Chemicals Management Plan.” A long-time observer of the EU process on chemicals, College of Europe Visiting Professor Daniel Guéguen, recently commented on the “flaws of today’s EU governance (with) no objective science, full-on opposition between NGOs and industry, and an incomprehensible process. Faced with this situation made possible by an extensive application of the precautionary principle, you would think that the science could decide it. But NGOs reject science-based policymaking.” Going down a similar path would not bode well for Canadians, and some have suggested that this report’s recommendations, if implemented, would do just that.

该报告的单独部分提出的官方反对派观点反映了常务委员会报告中缺乏平衡，指出了对非政府组织提交和证词的强烈关注。它指出，仅证人就与“控制有毒物质”有关的一个问题提出的24条建议显示，多数来自三名学术证人（42％），“在毒理学领域没有明显的科学或实践经验”。委员会委员会来自非政府组织之前的所有证据中有三分之二，有几个证据获得了进一步提交的机会，超出了截止日期，这是没有给工业的。

在最终分析中，反对派少数民族报告指出：“如果这项研究更加集中，并且分配了更多时间来获得关键证词，那么该报告可能代表了改善加拿大环境保护制度严格的又一步。可悲的是，报告中包含的大多数建议在许多情况下没有通过支持委员会的证词和证据来充分证实。它们似乎反映了意识形态偏见，赞成对加拿大环境保护制度进行批发翻拍，这可能会对加拿大的经济竞争力产生深刻的寒冷影响。”

自6月以来，包括CPCA在内的行业团体一直在工作，以解决报告缺乏平衡，以防止加拿大与化学管理方面的岩石道路沿着同一条岩石道路。朝着这样的方向移动不会为任何人在人类健康或环境方面的利益。