Print | Need Larger Text? | Share

Consumer Chemical Sector Working Group (CCSWG)

Face-to-Face Meeting Main Boardroom 1800 Walkley Road Ottawa, Ontario February 4 and 5, 2008

Help on accessing alternative formats, such as Portable Document Format (PDF), Microsoft Word and PowerPoint (PPT) files, can be obtained in the alternate format help section.

(PDF Version - 28 K)

Table of Contents

• Purpose of this discussion document
• Option 1 - The Discriminatory Approach
• Option 2 - The Non-discriminatory Approach
• Option 3 - The Shortened Timeframe Approach

This guide has been prepared to facilitate the discussions of the CCSWG regarding the implementation of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) in Canada. Where possible, it reflects opinions expressed by consumer chemical stakeholders for the development of the revised Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 (CCCR, 2001).

The CCSWG have been working on the implementation of the GHS for several years and is aiming at the worldwide harmonisation objective proposed for consumer chemical labelling. Although the new Canadian regulations for consumer chemicals are not yet drafted, we know that we are moving toward a new set of regulations that will integrate the GHS criteria to the greatest extent possible. Existing criteria of the CCCR, 2001 will be kept to maintain the current level of protection for hazards not properly addressed by the GHS (ie. Quick Skin Bonding Adhesives) or where the proposed GHS criteria does not meet Canada's current level of protection.

Moving from the current version of the CCCR, 2001 to the a new version including the GHS criteria (ie. CCCR, 2001 + GHS) will involve a great deal of work on behalf of manufacturers and importers. They will be required to do a complete assessment of each of their products using the proposed criteria to identify any potential new prohibitions or applicable mandatory packaging/labelling requirements. Once complete, new labels integrating the symbols, signal words, and hazards statements proposed by the GHS will have to be developed before a compliant CCCR, 2001 + GHS consumer chemical product can be manufactured, imported, sold or advertised in Canada. In addition, some manufacturers and importers might consider reformulating their products for various reasons based on the results of these assessments.

This is a considerable amount of work, therefore, we must plan a transition period that will accommodate all affected parties. For instance, a reasonable period of time should be allotted for industry members to comply with the new requirements while retailers phase out inventories of 'old' CCCR, 2001 products. We must not forget that the selected length and modalities of this transition period should strike a balance between the need for traders to reclassify and re-label products, and the consumer's right to better protection though an improved set of regulations. Unduly delaying full implementation also means more delays before achieving harmonisation with other countries.

The amount and nature of work involved for traders to move from the CCCR, 2001 to the CCCR, 2001 + GHS is, to a large extent, comparable to the work that was necessary to move from the 1994 to the 2001 version of the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations. This latter change involved moving from a list-based system to one that is now criteria based. This was a very unfamiliar approach to regulations with which the vast majority of traders are now comfortable. It is important to raise that we will be moving from an acute hazards-only scheme to a new broader set of regulations that will include criteria for several chronic hazards. Although new, these 'chronics' criteria should integrate themselves into the CCCR, 2001 similarly to the current 'acute' CCCR, 2001 criteria. Furthermore, the GHS criteria have been known to traders for several years now allowing them to do a pre-assessment of their products prior to actual implementation. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that the burden on traders to move from the CCCR, 2001 to the CCCR, 2001 + GHS may be as significant as the aforementioned change in regulatory approach. Therefore, we should consider using the old 'CCCR to CCCR, 2001 transition period' scheme as a starting point since this method took into account numerous pertinent elements such as the reasonable retail shelf-lives of all consumer chemical products.

We must keep in mind that transitional periods only apply to existing products; any new product introduced on the market after the 'coming into force' date of "CCCR, 2001 + GHS" would have to fully comply with all applicable requirements under these new regulations.

Health Canada is fully aware of the concerns raised by Canadian importers and manufacturers about implementing the GHS in Canada if our main trade partners, including the USA, are not moving forward in a timely fashion with their own implementation. Our discussions should then focus solely on identifying and selecting the most appropriate transition scheme for all Canadian stakeholders.

Purpose of this discussion document

It is important to raise that no decisions have been finalized up to now. This document contains a series of options which are suggested for the purpose of gathering reactions, comments and opinions which will allow Health Canada to take an enlightened decision and identify the best course of action.

Option 1 - The Discriminatory Approach

We use a transition period similar to the CCCR 2001 where we would, at retail, discriminate categories of products based on the level of hazard they represent and therefore grant different transition period accordingly.

The transitional provisions used in the CCCR, 2001 to move from the old Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations opted for a four (4) year total period. The transition period for manufacturers and importers was two (2) years. The remaining two (2) years applied solely to retailers and it was decided that products posing a higher hazard to consumer would be required to comply after three (3) years and the remaining less harmful products (Category: pressurized container, harmful, irritant, combustible) would be allowed the full four (4) years. Obviously, if certain hazard categories are prohibited then they would be considered as high hazard and therefore automatically tied to the shorter transition period.

Challenge: It will be quite complex to determine which classification and category should be considered as a lower or higher risk for the new types of hazards.

Benefit: Most traders are already familiar with this scenario.

Option 2 - The Non-discriminatory Approach

We consider a scenario similar to Option 1 where we use the same length of transition period but not discriminate products based on the level of inherent hazard they might represent. This option would mean allowing a full transitional period of three (3) years: two (2) years for manufacturers and importers for existing consumer chemical products that comply to the CCCR, 2001 and one (1) year instead of two (2) for retailers. This shorter period for retailers is necessary otherwise, we would be allowing a longer transition period to a portion of consumer chemical products that are more hazardous. At the time, this was deemed inappropriate for CCCR, 2001 therefore applying it to the GHS may be incorrect.

Challenge: The total transition period would be one (1) year shorter making the total transition time three (3) years instead of four (4).

Benefit: Simplicity

Option 3 - The Shortened Timeframe Approach

Scheme similar to option 2 where we would not discriminate products based on the level of inherent hazard they might represent. However, since the majority of manufacturers and importers are already familiar with a criteria based system, it may be appropriate to consider a reduction in the transition period applicable to them from two (2) years to one (1). Keeping in mind the reasons stated in option 2 that forced us to limit the retailer additional period to one (1) year, we could now provide two (2) since the total transition period is still limited to three (3) years overall.

Challenge: The total transition period would be one (1) year shorter making the total transition time three (3) years instead of four (4).

Benefit: This proposed option would incite manufacturers and importers to act diligently on product assessments and relabelling to reach compliance within a significantly shorter time frame. The possibility of having non-compliant or prohibited products still available at retail once the transition period ends would be significantly reduced because an additional year would allow a more complete retail shelf turnover. In addition, consumers would benefit sooner from the protection of a safer and more complete regulatory scheme.