Health Committee on June 4th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm going to take it to the committee. Does the committee support Ms. Wasylycia-Leis' amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, it's just a question of where I should raise this. I have two amendments dealing with the schedule. Do you want to do it now or later?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

No, later please. We'll get to it in the schedule, as a matter of fact. Thank you so much.

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 7--Manufacturer and importer)

Clause 7 is one that we stood.

Dr. Bennett, are you prepared to address this one?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I think people will have it now in front of them.

The issue with the amendment is that we felt the complementary nature of CEPA and Bill C-6 is important and admirable, but it is important to be absolutely clear that any harmful substance is not just affecting immediate human health and safety. But if it was released into the environment, then over time it would be one of these exposures that would be bad for the environment and eventually bad for humans and animals. We explain that part in the various examples.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you. I don't mean to interrupt you. Are you finished, Dr. Bennett? Thank you.

Could I have comments from the officials on this, please? Mr. Glover.

Before the officials answer, there is a question. Dr. Bennett, there is a part here that has been blacked out.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

So I am assuming we are dealing with the part that is not blacked out, right?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

That would be an excellent assumption.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

It's because I'm so clever, Dr. Bennett. Thank you.

Yes, that is what she is saying.

Okay, Mr. Glover.

[Paul Glover]

Thank you for the opportunity to have a moment to examine the amendment proposed.

This amendment does present the department with a number of concerns in that it does create some duplication of what already exists within CEPA, where these activities are already undertaken, and would therefore create some confusion about which act, how to administer, and when. More specifically, as an official I am obliged to indicate that this would create new obligations, and the current resourcing levels would not allow me to indicate that I would be able to deliver these amendments without additional resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Are there any further comments on this? Madam Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

We're now into a discussion that will apply not just to this amendment but to a number of amendments, and we need to get some clarification from the department about how the government actually feels about the general direction of the amendment and other amendments like it. How serious are the cost factors in terms of implementing this and others? To what extent will the government perhaps even hold up this bill if this amendment is passed and there are these kinds of cost implications?

We really need a frank chat here, because we've all heard from so many witnesses over the last little while about the need to move on some substantive changes that deal with hazardous products and deal with labelling. The witnesses, I think, were pretty clear generally. And the department has indicated there are some serious problems with going in this direction.

I would like some dialogue, some more emphasis and more discussion from department officials and government members about just what this means and how we could advance the agenda, with which I think everybody is in agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Could we have some additional comments from the committee or from the officials? Who would like to speak first?

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

We're debating this bill because the government has had the good sense to recognize that there are concerns in the public about potential harm in consumer products and imported products. So it's taking measures to protect the public.

So here is my question. Is the concern that this amendment is bad public policy, or is it that resources may be required to further protect the public? I think the public might think that this is a normal part of additional protection and might be supportive of the fact that it would cost government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Would anyone like to comment on that?

Mr. Glover.

[Paul Glover]

The fundamental concern of the department is that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act already does this work. It has gone through an extensive exercise to prioritize all chemicals in use in Canada, at the direction of Parliament. It went through all 23,000 chemicals in use in this country and prioritized based on a number of specific criteria: the potential for exposure, and whether they are a hazard to human health, to the environment, and to that on which life depends on this planet. It is quickly and systematically working to move through all of those, not just from the point of view of consumer products but from the point of view of industrial uses in factories and releases to the environment. It considers cumulative exposures. It looks at exposures not just from consumer products but through all routes.

So this in fact is already being done through another piece of legislation, where the work has been done. We have been directed by the department through Parliament to do this work, and we are in fact busy doing that.

The other concern is that to just do consumer products when you're taking a more integrated approach, looking at all uses, would create some confusion within the industry and the marketplace about not wanting to do it in two separate places.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'd like a further clarification of what you've just said, Mr. Glover.

There have been a number of groups concerned that CEPA isn't adequate protection. So when we're coming forward as a committee and the government is coming forward saying we want better protection to the public from harm or toxic elements in the products.... We've heard from groups that CEPA is not adequate. There is in fact a different approach, which mirrors the approach in this amendment, in countries in the European Union and in the United States.

So you're making a pitch that CEPA is adequate. These organizations are actually saying that it's not and that it hasn't protected consumers adequately. Are you saying they're wrong, or that we should hope that CEPA is going to do a better job in the future?

[Paul Glover]

Madam Chair, without having the list and knowing exactly which organizations, my response is limited.

I will say that with the chemicals management plan--which was the new approach to looking at chemicals, as a result of the prioritization and responding to the concerns about the environment and human health--the department and the government received significant accolades from around the world, from both industry and non-governmental organizations. They indicated that the plan was world-leading, that it is a first. It has set the new benchmark for both the prioritization of substances and the pace at which those substances are being assessed.

Furthermore, part of the reason it is so widely supported is that there is an onus on the chemicals that have been prioritized. There is a predisposition that they are problematic and they must be proven to be safe. If they cannot be proven to be safe, the government will risk-manage those substances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Would there be a problem if part of this proposed amendment were included? And that would be the (a) part, which talks about the environment.

The reason I'm asking that is that we were all the way through these hearings and we were trying to grapple with this notion of not just obvious poisons and old products that were a problem, but products that had dangerous substances that over a period of time could accumulate and cause health problems or leach into the environment and recirculate and cause more problems. And I think there was a general wish that we could somehow reference that. We're talking about chronic issues as well as toxic products. What would be the danger if we did that in terms of the resources you've talked about and the overextended nature of the department and the difficulties in terms of moving rapidly into the area of listing carcinogens and labelling them and so on?

You say we rely on CEPA. I don't know that CEPA has caused products to be removed from the market. And I would like to get some examples of when it comes into effect and how it has been used, because it seems to me that usually we're using the Hazardous Products Act when we're talking about consumer products.

So I'm just a little confused on the three avenues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Glover.

[Paul Glover]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With respect to the first issue and leaving a part of it in, with respect, that would continue to be problematic from the point of view that it again would duplicate what already exists in CEPA and where CEPA goes beyond that to look at all uses of a particular substance and all their releases into the environment, not just from the product. Their assessments also consider all exposure pathways, not just from the product but all potential exposure pathways, to deal with it. So CEPA provides a more comprehensive set of protections.

The other challenge the department would face is the products. The way we work with products is post-market, not pre-market. How would we do this in a post-market world, where there are literally hundreds of thousands of products coming in every day, and verify this? The cost of that would be quite significant to us. I'm not able to suggest what those might be, but I would anticipate they would be quite large for us.

With respect to how CEPA responds to those risks, CEPA has quite a broad range of tools available to it whereby it can prohibit, call for the phase-out of a substance, and require pollution prevention plans to limit the amount that is released into the environment. These tools are precise, so they can allow for use in one environment and not in others. There are examples. It will get a little technical, and I apologize in advance, but polybrominated diphenyl ethers are flame retardants; they save 300 lives a year. We looked at those and found they were problematic for the environment. We asked that they be phased out of a number of product categories where they were not appropriate, but left in firefighter foams and others where there was not an available replacement that would provide the same protection to both the firefighters and the lives of those saved. We indicated we would be back to revisit that, which is essentially a signal to the industry to develop new replacement technologies as it moves forward.

So those are the sorts of things that happen under CEPA.

The other thing that happens under CEPA is that all new products must be approved. So there is a new product process that is not post-market, where those chemicals are assessed by the government. So it's not in a post-market, pre-market environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Mrs. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To me, when we talk about health and safety, those words are quite clear and concrete as it is. As we find out things about products and necessary action gets taken, I think it would not be appropriate for this committee to overlap into CEPA. If there are issues with how CEPA is dealing with things, they have to be dealt with in that particular mechanism and that legislation. So I appreciate the comments by our officials here in terms of not overlapping and duplicating with another piece of legislation on this issue.