Evidence of meeting #22 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consumers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
It seems like the example of toys is a good example of where it actually would be helpful for parents to know what the product can do that might be harmful as opposed to assuming that if something is bought then it has to be safe. For me, that did bring up some of the comments Ms. Coombs made about labelling.
Ms. Coombs, one of your two proposals is around hoaxes. I am just not familiar with the issue. Can you give me some examples of hoaxes that the amendments to the bill would prevent?
May 28th, 2009 / 4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
The provision that was included in Bill C-51 was that “No person shall--knowing information to be false or being reckless as to its truth--communicate or cause to be communicated that information with the intent to cause a reasonable apprehension in others” that a consumer product presents a danger to human health or safety.
Clearly, the department feels that's necessary to have with respect to food, therapeutic products, or cosmetics. We felt that the same could be extended to Bill C-6 with the covering of consumer products.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I'm sorry, but I didn't really understand what you're proposing. In layperson's language, what do you want to have changed in terms of protection against hoaxes and what are some examples of the kinds of hoaxes that create problems?
4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
As for an example, I don't have one right off the top of my head with respect to human health, but there are particular products that are attacked in the marketplace. They're attacked, and the statements made about those products are inaccurate, and they could cause harm if they're used inappropriately. Because the hoax is that the product should not be used or should be used in a different manner. We don't wish that to happen. People should read the labels and use the products appropriately.
If there is misinformation spread about the products, then there is a recourse. There's a provision in there for the government to take action.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
My theory is that when you're going to do regulating or legislating, you're responding to a real problem that's out there, not a theory. That's why I was wondering what the real problem is. I'm still not quite understanding the problem. The issue of labelling is clearly an important one, in that we've had several representations on that issue.
Mr. Schwarcz, when you're talking about science and how we should be basing our decisions on science, is it your view that something is either a risk or not a risk? It sounds like that's what you were saying.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Office for Science and Society, McGill University
No. Science is never white or black. It's various shades of grey. But the truth is always closer to one end than to the other.
In science, we try to go by consensus. You never make hay with one single study; you take a look at all of the studies and you see what the consensus, the opinion, is. You come up with a decision that, at the time, seems the most appropriate. It may be that it has to be changed in the future, because science is a process. It never really comes to an end.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you. I appreciate that verification.
So if it's shades of grey, would that not suggest, then, that it would make sense for consumers to have more information rather than less in order to make their decisions?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Office for Science and Society, McGill University
Absolutely, as long as the information is accurate.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks to the witnesses who are with us this afternoon.
When it comes to studying a bill in committee, it's always important to hear the views of experts. This bill will be quite broad in scope. Amendments need to be made to this act, which dates back a number of years.
Mr. Schwarcz, you said in your presentation that we shouldn't raise needless fears among citizens, and I believe you're right. In your view, if a product contains recognized carcinogens, it should be withdrawn from the market rather than be labelled with a warning. I understand your explanation very clearly. I remember that one witness said at a previous committee meeting that, under some legislation, the labelling of products containing carcinogens had been amended.
Do you think we should have avoided putting these kinds of warnings on those products in view of the fact that consumers suffered injury, whereas no serious evidence had been brought of the actual dangerousness of the substances in question?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Office for Science and Society, McGill University
I'm not sure I follow exactly the question. It's about labelling products with a supposed carcinogen in there and what that means to the consumer. That's the basic question.
What I am suggesting is that what a label like that would mean to the consumer is quite different from what it means to the scientific community. The consumer would interpret that as a real risk, that using that product has been shown to increase the risk of cancer, which is just not the case. If such a product has been shown to increase the risk of cancer, that product should not be on the market. The fact that there's one component in that product, which in some experiments has caused some kind of cancer at some dose and with some tested animals, doesn't mean that it warrants a carcinogen label on that particular product.
I can give you one other analogy. Every time you drink a cup of coffee or just sniff its aroma you're exposed to over 1,000 different compounds. A number of these, at least six, are carcinogens. We know that coffee itself is not carcinogenic. If it were, this would have become knowledge a long time ago. We have enough epidemiological evidence. You certainly can have a product such a coffee, which contains carcinogens, but the product itself is not carcinogenic because the dose in there is way too small. Furthermore, the effect of those carcinogens is mitigated by all of the other compounds present in the coffee. If you are going to label something as a “carcinogen”, which is a very powerful word, there has to be concrete evidence that it represents a real risk to the public.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Is there a regularly updated list of substances that, in your view as a scientist, are recognized as carcinogenic?
If such a list exists, to your knowledge, are any products currently on the market containing recognized carcinogens on that list?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Office for Science and Society, McGill University
There are certainly products being sold that contain ingredients that are on a hierarchy list or on other lists as carcinogens. There is no product on the market that I know of that has been shown to be a carcinogen, as a product.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you very much.
I'm going to put my next question to the Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists.
I would like to know whether, elsewhere in the world—it's at that level that you seem to want to base your studies—certain products aren't sold because they emit a given level of noise. I'm thinking in particular of toys intended for children, in view of the fact that that was the subject of your first comment.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists
I'm going to answer in English.
Currently the legislation is 100 decibels. Health Canada does test for toys that exceed 100 decibels. They do recalls for those toys that exceed those noise levels. What we're trying to say is that 100 decibels is too high.
The other issue we have is that many toys come into the country from other countries that don't necessarily have the same testing standards that we do here in Canada. I have personal examples of toys given to my child that clearly exceeded 100 decibels and that were manufactured overseas. They were brought in by well-meaning grandparents who'd been visiting other countries.
When we do receive complaints in our association, we forward them to Health Canada. They are very good at responding, at sending inspectors out to examine them and then withdrawing them from the marketplace if they do exist. We're saying that 100 decibels is a danger to a child's hearing. We need that decibel level lowered.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
It's not necessary for you to make that comment with regard to Bill C-6, but with regard to the standard that is—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm so sorry, Mr. Malo, but I have to go Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I hate to interrupt you, but it's her turn now. My apologies.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I'm sure you can pick up on Mr. Malo's point.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Absolutely. I'm going to continue along the lines of what he was saying and ask some questions about toys.
Ondina or Chantal, did you happen to bring your noisy bunny with you?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists
Oh, we thought about it.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
That would have helped, I think.
I want to commend both of you for the work you've been doing in trying to bring this issue to Parliament. We're talking about very noisy toys that, when they're used in a natural way by kids, are very harmful to the hearing system, and could cause loss of hearing and deafness. In Canada we have a decibel level of 100, which is way higher than other countries. The WHO standard is 75 decibels.
I just want to declare my conflict of interest on this. They came to see me, and I have a private member's bill on this. It's Bill C-541, and it amends the Hazardous Products Act to do just this.
I think what they're saying is, okay, here's a chance; we have a bill on consumer safety and safe toys, so perhaps we could find a way to amend this bill to do it. We wouldn't have to wait any longer. I think everybody agrees that's pretty rational.
To Ondina and Chantal, do you think we could take this idea and add it as an amendment or a regulation to the bill so that we could accomplish it as part of Bill C-6?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists
Thank you, Judy. That is exactly our thought. This bill is on the table and it's an opportunity.
There is no health benefit to having a toy at 100 decibels. There's absolutely no health benefit. There's no reason to have legislation that has a decibel level reading of 100 decibels for toys.
The other issue is the way that children play with toys. The government cannot legislate that a child play with a toy at arm's length. The current legislation does take into account toys that are meant to be held close to the ear, such as toy cell phones, etc., at a lower decibel level, but often children play with normal toys in ways that are much closer than arm's length, which is a current testing protocol.
We can address this through the product safety legislation or it can be addressed through regulations. It's the expertise of this committee that we're relying on to look at the best opportunity to address this important hearing health issue.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you very much.
I think that speaks for itself. It's a good amendment that we should think about.
I'd like to go to Shannon and really get at this whole issue of right to know, labelling or not, and how to deal with the concerns people have about substances that are carcinogenic; I want to take on Joe a bit on this one.
CCCR deals with very specific poisonous substances, right? It doesn't deal with chronic issues around phthalates, lead, and bisphenol A in products that could, on a cumulative basis, be problematic. If you say no labelling, then how are people going to know what they're being exposed to, and how can they act responsibly?
What you seemed to say was, “If they're bad, let's ban them”. I think that's not a bad idea, but I don't think we're going to convince the government to ban all lead, all bisphenol A, and all phthalates in all children's toys and products.
Isn't labelling the only thing left to us?
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
Thank you for your question.
I was all prepared for you to ask something about GHS.
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
I'll tie that in.
What we're saying is that consumers have a right to know. They have a right to the appropriate information on labels.
We have precautionary labelling in this country. We've had it for 40 years. All I'm saying is that if we're going to move to a different type of hazard classification or labelling system in this country, we need to look at something that provides meaningful information to consumers.
I don't think putting a “C”, for example, on a sunscreen that contains titanium oxide--it is a listed IARC carcinogen and is contained in the sunscreen, but when formulated appropriately protects you from cancer--is appropriate.
I don't think having moms make their own risk assessment at the store is appropriate. I'm a mom myself, and I don't think it's appropriate to make moms ask, “Do I put sunscreen on my child or do I not?” If the product is formulated appropriately and labelled appropriately, then it is safe for consumers to use. If there's something in the product that's not safe, the government has the ability, through the general prohibition, to remove this.
With respect to lead, I think it's—