Evidence of meeting #23 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I found the presentation, the primer on child health and the environment, quite interesting. My wife, by virtue of her trade--she is a doula--does a lot of prenatal education, postpartum breastfeeding support, and a number of things like that.
You talk about chemicals in breast milk and chemicals in formula. Let's switch the page. There was one thing that was rather silent in the study, and that's chemicals in vaccines, which we're administering at younger and younger ages, including at hours old for some infants in some jurisdictions, like New Brunswick, for example. We're standardizing multiple vaccines for as early as two months of age.
Can anyone on the panel inform us of some of the studies out there on the chemicals that are used in vaccines or in their manufacture and what effect that has on development health issues and things like that with respect to infants and young children?
5:15 p.m.
Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Dr. Spady, you may want to chime in, as well.
I believe that one of the most contentious issues you're raising is the issue of thimerosal or mercury-based preservatives in vaccines, which was phased out for childhood vaccines several years ago. It's still in the flu vaccine, which raises some concerns.
We did a review with experts at Toronto Public Health to answer that, because these questions definitely have come up in response to these educational materials. While we need more evidence, we decided to go with the prevailing public health message, which is that the benefit of vaccines outweighs the uncertain science of contaminants in vaccines thus far. I would say that the jury is still out.
We felt the need to make that response to these concerns because of the involvement of public health departments in our partnership and because we drew upon their advice.
I think Dr. Spady might want to add something.
5:15 p.m.
Principal Investigator, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta
I would endorse what Kathleen has said, because the benefits of these vaccines far outweigh any potential detriment.
Now, I don't know, maybe there are some children that are very sensitive to what happens to be in a vaccine, but it would be very difficult to tell before the fact. I think from a public health point of view, it clearly benefits the child to have the vaccine.
With respect to the thimerosal in vaccines, the studies and the reviews that have come out more recently would suggest that that compound really has not been a major player in the development of autism, which I believe is where you're perhaps coming from. Overall, vaccines are good for you.
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Department of Health
I believe the question has been answered. This is just to say that while it's not my direct area of responsibility in Health Canada, this is something the department looks at.
I believe the response of the witness is consistent with the view of the department in its evaluation, but if it interests the committee, we would be happy to provide additional information through the clerk, if it is felt that the question has not been answered.
Let me very briefly go back to the last question, Mr. Chairman. When we speak of cumulative effects and impacts, one of the things that are important, given that this is new emerging science, is trying to figure out which mixtures matter, what the cumulative impacts are, and the different uses of some of these chemicals we talk about in CEPA. They have many uses—some of them hundreds, literally thousands of uses—that result in different types and intensities of exposure.
I will go back to the point I've been making throughout, and that is about bio-monitoring. Tracking over time the level we are finding in people is going to be exceedingly important. We can do all the studies, but if we don't bio-monitor to see whether the levels are going up or down, we'll be missing a critical element.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Yes. I want to follow up on this. It's not simply the thimerosal issue, of course; it is still used in the manufacture, and also as a preservative, mind you; it's not just about whether it's present in the actual vaccine itself. We're talking about other compounds that are used in auto antifreeze, embalming fluid—other things like these that go into these things.
The reason I bring this issue up is that we talk about the development of safer alternatives, and yet nobody seems to apply this idea to some of the things that are present in vaccines. They say it is because the benefits outweigh the risks, and that's almost the end of the story on it.
Should we not be pursuing safer alternatives, Ms. Cooper?
5:20 p.m.
Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association
The decision to remove thimerosal specifically from childhood vaccines was a precautionary decision to remove the mercury exposure even without full evidence of harm, just as a way preventing additional mercury exposure. I would point to that as a benefit.
I'm out of my league here, though, so I don't want to go on into the other components. I shouldn't go where I don't belong.
You've raised the issue of the messaging about breast milk and contaminants in breast milk. One of the things that have come up as well around these issues is that it's so important to maintain the message that breastfeeding is still the most important and the best way to feed a child long term—absolutely. You have to maintain those messages together. It's very important when you're talking about contaminants in breast milk.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
I would like to come back to Mr. Freeman.
I think you didn't have time to elaborate on the issue of restoration of vulnerable areas of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. Could you take a couple of minutes to tell us about this? How do you propose to establish these vulnerable areas?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
What we've proposed is to grant the minister the authority to designate significant areas that are uniquely exposed to pollution or unique in generating pollution.
We think the Great Lakes Basin would be a primary candidate to be designated as such, because of its importance as the largest freshwater ecosystem in the world, but also in terms of how much pollution is generated in that area and how vulnerable the population is in the basin.
At the same time, we feel there is a need for legislative intervention in Canada to match or try to catch up with the U.S. legislative commitments that have been made to clean up the basin. Canada is far behind in terms of those commitments.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement needs an implementing mechanism federally. We think CEPA is an appropriate vehicle for all of those things, particularly given Canada's record, in terms of how far behind we are not just in legislative commitments but actually, on the ground.
If you look at our facilities versus the U.S. facilities, we contribute toxic air pollution 93% more in our facilities than they do in theirs. In terms of pollution reduction, on the U.S. side they've reduced pollution in the Great Lakes by 45%. We've reduced by 2%. It's negligible.
Overall, that's what we're pushing for, to have CEPA recognized first of all as the implementing mechanism for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, but also as a significant area that needs special attention legislatively.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to commend Ms. Cooper for saying that the first thing to do in order to reduce the effects on children is to fight poverty. I think this is essential. Unfortunately, you noted that poverty is not a very popular issue with parliamentarians.
I know this is the case because I'm the BQ critic for social housing and homelessness. No one wants to talk about it although it is true that poverty is growing. Poor children are more likely to ingest chemicals since they mostly live inside or on farms where poor conditions exist. They often walk barefoot in mud and dirt, they are exposed to unsafe stoves and so on.
It's easy to say that poverty must be eradicated, but how do you go about that? The Liberal government tried but did not succeed and I'm sure no other government will do any better. This is not the way to do it. You can't just say you're going to eliminate poverty and that you will start right now.
Don't you think that something can still be done such as giving money for better housing or increasing the income of people living on farms? Did you think about other solutions to reduce child poverty?
5:25 p.m.
Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Yes, but that's not the focus of the work, my own work. You will definitely know more than I do in terms of what needs to be done to reduce poverty across the board, particularly as it affects children. The reason it is included is that I work for a legal aid clinic. It is a major priority of our organization to represent low-income people and, in the broader public interest, to bring those points forward. It's also because in the literature--mostly in the United States but increasingly in Canada--it's very clear that children are at greater risk from lead exposure, from exposure to pesticides, the things you mentioned.
I'm sort of stuck responding to your question because it's not my area of expertise. It's just that I rely on colleagues who advance that and support that work. That's the best way to respond.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I'll ask a question that I think I know the answer to. You always have to watch those kinds of questions here.
My understanding in respect to reporting to the government by industry on substances is that we concurrently require them, under CEPA, to have that information, but I don't believe that is necessarily required to be verified by an independent third party before it's submitted to the minister. Can you have somebody respond on that?
One of the provisions of the Clean Air Act is that there has to be an independent verification as well, but I need to get a confirmation from somebody here, maybe Health Canada, as to whether that is the case. Does it have to be verified by a third party?
5:25 p.m.
Cynthia Wright Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
You're correct, it does not have to be verified.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Okay, then, to the others, quickly, do you think it would be a good idea that it be required to be verified by a third party?
5:25 p.m.
Allergy and Environmental Health Association of Quebec
Yes, definitely, because from the experience with pesticides, we look at the research that the industry is producing, and that research is secret; nobody knows about it. And when you look at the PCPA, at the margin of safety, the Quebec government came to the conclusion that there were no safety margins, so they banned hundreds of pesticides in the province. That was the only way to protect people.
5:25 p.m.
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
We would certainly support that. In our larger submission, we have a series of recommendations relating to the National Pollutant Release Inventory that include better auditing and verification, but also making the reporting more comprehensive. For example, certain forms of mining waste, which form a huge segment of the pollution stream, are not reported under NPRI. These were recently added to the Toxics Release Inventory, which is the U.S. counterpart, and what you saw were huge increases in the volumes as a result of that inclusion in the reporting regime.
