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.
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Department of Health
I didn't read them, so I can't speak about the studies conducted by the groups that are present today.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
The University of Ottawa conducted a review of news media, but I want to know if you did any blood tests on children, and particularly newborn babies.
4:50 p.m.
Professor and Director, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
Yes and no. We conducted studies on children's health but we did not collect any new bio-monitoring data. We examined exposure levels to pesticides and other toxic chemicals.
But I would like to mention, if you're interested particularly in bio-monitoring, the best place to go is the recent U.S. National Research Council's report on bio-monitoring. It just came out. We had a workshop on bio-monitoring at the University of Ottawa several weeks ago, and we had the chair of that committee, Dr. Thomas Burke from Johns Hopkins University, come and address us. We have a full report, some several hundred pages, of the proceedings of that workshop on our website.
4:50 p.m.
Science Adviser, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
I have done some direct research on the impacts of exposure to lead in the community of Belledune, where the province did do blood sampling. Bio-monitoring testing is done, but if you can't correlate it to any symptoms that you might see in these children, it really isn't going to tell you very much.
We went into the population and did a survey of children's health. We actually looked at children living at various radiuses from the smelter. We knew what their blood lead levels were, and we then had the parents tell us what symptoms they had. What we found astonishing was that children living closer to the smelter had on the order of three to four more health problems per child than children living further out of a three-kilometre radius. We have done that kind of work, and there is a correlation.
They also had higher lead levels in their soil. So now you have a direct link between contaminants in the soil, contaminants in their blood, and health problems.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Freeman, I think you privately tested 13 individuals for 68 toxic substances and that the cost was about $10,000 per person.
4:50 p.m.
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
We've done two studies under the toxic nation project that we've been running. I wouldn't characterize these as scientific peer-reviewed studies. We don't pretend that they are, although they are consistent with a lot of the studies that have been done in other jurisdictions.
We've tested for many of the chemicals, which we've talked about here—perfluorinated compounds and flame retardants—and we've come up with very similar findings. For example, when you ban a chemical, you see a more reduced level of toxic burden in children than you do in adults. But for persistent chemicals, such as flame retardants that haven't been banned, we actually found higher levels in children than in their parents.
The next round of testing, which we'll be releasing within the next month, is actually the ministers of environment and health, and various critics.... So I'm sure everyone around the table will be interested to see those results.
4:50 p.m.
Professor and Director, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
It was a point of general information, Mr. Chairman, which I think relates to Monsieur Lussier's question and to several other questions. There are two documents—one is published and the other will appear shortly—that might be of great relevance to the committee's deliberations.
I chaired a committee with the U.S. National Research Council on how to test environmental agents for toxicity, in the broad sense. We published a report last year that goes into detail on all the different approaches and the current state of the science.
Our follow-up report, which we're just wrapping up now, looks at how we can do this better in the future. Our charge was to look 10 or 20 years down the road, to really be transformative, and to ask questions such as these: Is it possible to test all chemicals? Is it possible to find more efficient ways that would use fewer animals? What are the emerging technologies that can really help us do toxicity testing smarter? How do we address all of the different life stages at which there might be unique vulnerabilities?
That report is undergoing peer review and should be finalized. I would certainly be happy to make a copy available as soon as it's completed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I worked several years in the field of air quality inside buildings, houses and developments. I had a research centre at that time and we found out that levels of pollutants were much higher inside buildings than outside and were making people sick.
Even in the case of the people you mentioned who were living near a smelter, they often become sick inside their homes because they get back from work with clothes contaminated by lead and so on. Allergies and health problems develop inside the home.
Since I left all of that behind ten years ago, I was wondering if a lot of effort still goes into the selection of materials. I have worked in this field. What you can find in a carpet is really frightening. It's hard to imagine how all these things can live in there. They won't kill you, Mr. Chair, but they are bad for your health.
To the best of your knowledge, has any work been done in this regard in the past ten years? If yes, what kind of measures are being taken to improve inside air quality?
4:55 p.m.
Allergy and Environmental Health Association of Quebec
As a matter of fact, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a list of less toxic materials. Our own association has such a list on its website. We hear a lot about building materials and cleaners. It's true that carpets can release gases. The furniture here is made of pressed wood and thus contains a lot of glue. Some cleaners release toxic substances in the air.
There are buildings in Montreal with little airflow where they had to change the cleaning products they used because people were getting sick. They now use natural cleaners, and this seems to have cleared the problem.
4:55 p.m.
Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Yes. When I mentioned the areas where we thought exposure was of the greatest concern and I said “air”, I meant indoor air equally to outdoor air. Regulating indoor air is very challenging. However, what you can do with CEPA is get a grip on regulating consumer products, which are often the source of many of the contaminants of concern. That is why we've put such a focus on that source of exposure. It's not just air; the contaminants are in the house dust.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
November 6th, 2006 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Harvey.
I really appreciate the witnesses being here today. I find this very interesting.
I will give a little background on myself, and I'll try to make it short. My wife and I have five children, and given the importance of what they eat and their environment as they develop.... We are now in the stage of our life where we have grandchildren, and we hope and pray that they develop in a healthy way. We have three and two-thirds grandchildren; there is one on the way.
I really appreciate the comments and the focus on children who are developing, in their younger ages and even in the pre-birth time of their lives. I also have an 84-year-old father and can see how vulnerable he is to air quality.
Under the Pest Control Products Act—Mr. Godfrey alluded to this.... I want to read a paragraph there. It says “...in assessing risk to humans, consideration be given to aggregate exposure to pest control products, cumulative effects of pest control products and the different sensitivities to pest control products of major identifiable subgroups...”. The vulnerable groups are listed as pregnant women, infants, children, women, and seniors. That is a very clear list of vulnerable groups.
Is there support for that being part of the preamble in CEPA? Could I have a quick answer to that?
5 p.m.
Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Yes, there is, but it's for more than just having it in the preamble.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I want to assure you that the Clean Air Act, which we tabled a couple of weeks ago, deals with this very issue. It shows that we have definitely been listening regarding the targets of air pollutants—those who create the air pollutants. We're setting targets, which will be set in the springtime, focusing on the large final emitters, focusing on fossil-fuel-fired electricity generation, the upstream oil and gas, downstream petroleum, base metal smelters, iron and steel producers, cement, forest products, chemical production, and on and on.
The other thing of interest, which was alluded to a moment ago, is the indoor air quality. The information I have is that Canadians spend about 90% of their time indoors, and so you have chemicals. Mr. Ouellet adequately shared that.
I just ordered a new suit from a local dealer, and for an extra $8 I can have Supercrease put onto my pants so that the crease on the front and back of my pants will stay crisp. I said, “Sure, let's do it.” But you wonder about the flame retardants that are in our clothing, our cars, our houses. They add a degree of safety in our homes, and the super crease in my pants, but these are chemicals that are against our bodies, and which we absorb. There is this balance of having a quality of life, but maybe not, in that it can cause people to get sick.
I found the toxic nation report very interesting. The sampling was very small, so we don't know the consequence of those chemicals, but focusing first on the vulnerable groups is a good focus.
I'm probably out of time now, anyway. Are there any comments on the quality of the products that we use?
5 p.m.
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
This relates to your first comment more. I would strongly support the inclusion of vulnerable populations in the preamble, but I would also support vulnerable geographic areas. It's difficult, given the problems Canada faces, to separate the two in some cases.
