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.
Imperial Oil Limited
I'd rather wait and see how the PCPA changes play out in time. I'm not keen to go down that path, because I think toxic substances are inherently different from pesticides, perhaps. There may be some that are similar and others that are different. They're a broader range of chemical substances that I wouldn't want to force into the same mould as the PCPA employs.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Is there anybody else on this point before I turn it over to my colleague?
November 6th, 2006 / 4:40 p.m.
Professor and Director, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
Could we just get clarification on the PCPA? Are you referring to the additional tenfold margin of safety that's recommended unless there's evidence to the contrary, or to a more general statement?
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I guess what I'm referring to is the language in the preamble, which says “in assessing risks to humans”, “aggregate exposure”, “cumulative effects”, “different sensitivities”, “of major identifiable subgroups, including pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors”; in other words, being very specific about the subgroups in the preamble. Is that what you want in the preamble to CEPA?
Actually, there are two other parts to that: section 4.1 as well of the Pest Control Products Act, and applying appropriate margins of safety, threshold effects if it's near a school or homes---that's the sort of language.
Professor and Director, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
Let me make two quick points in response to the question.
First, you heard our recommendation to specifically identify children in the preamble to CEPA. I think Dr. Keefe made some very reasonable arguments that all sensitive subpopulations are really intended to be taken care of. I think the only reason we've suggested singling out children is that they are unique in certain ways. We're looking at developing organ and tissue systems, physiological characteristics that are unique to that life stage. If we look at other susceptible subpopulations who are defined in terms of genetics, different polymorphisms of the population, socio-economic status, those would be very difficult to address. There seems to be a uniqueness about children and also the tremendous concern about them. They are our future. So if you had to pick one, our thought was that children are worth a mention. But we do agree with Roger that they are implicit.
On the second point, the PCP Act is I think the first statute in Canada where we've actually requested additional assurances of safety for children. It's intended that there be an additional tenfold margin of safety for children--that's the default--unless you can show that children are not more susceptible than adults, in which case you can dispense with that.
That goes back to the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 in the U.S. I think I had the pleasure of making a contribution to that through a report we did through the National Research Council in 1993. It made exactly that recommendation. We were delighted to see that it was actually taken up in U.S. legislation, and in turn, it has been picked up now in Canada.
Those are my two comments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Ms. Cooper, I know you wanted to get in on this, but it really is Mr. Rodriguez.
Go ahead.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few quick questions to ask.
First, Ms. Cooper, you said that cancer is rare in children. However, are cancer rates on the rise?
Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association
If you look at the rates for cancer in children in Canada over time, you do not see an upward increase. However, if you look at much larger populations in the European Union and the United States, there is a 30-year upward trend in cancer in children. There are the same kinds of cancers in children in Canada as in other industrialized countries. Whether the fact that we don't have an increasing trend is just a matter of a rare disease in a small population or whether we simply don't have an upward increase, you can't tell with the numbers.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
We didn't talk about this, but there's probably a link between the general health of children and the fact that they're less active, more sedentary and don't play outside as much as they used to. All these elements must have a health impact. So you wonder what you can try to do to encourage our young people to be more active.
Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Absolutely. There are multiple determinants of health. One thing you can do about increasing children's activity is curbing urban sprawl and increasing opportunities for public transportation--additional environmental policies that can be beneficial to the population as a whole. We have a car-dependent, sedentary society, and that has an impact on children.
So yes, you look at the whole package, but what we were talking about today is the contribution of environmental factors to serious health outcomes.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
My next question is addressed to whoever wants to answer it. Speaking of health, how do our children compare to those of other G-7 countries? Are there major differences in this regard between Canadian provinces?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Does someone want to jump in on that? Health Canada? Mr. Glover?
Are you going to pass?
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I have a very quick last question. I didn't hear anything about climate change and greenhouse gases. It seems to me there's a consensus that global warming is having short, medium and long-term impacts. Mr. Freeman may have something to say about this. Surely global warming is affecting children and their health and has medium and long-term effects on populations.
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
I'm not an expert on child health. I can tell you some of the impacts that have been discussed in the Great Lakes, but I'm not sure if that's what you want to hear.
Paul Glover Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Department of Health
With climate change, not specifically, but if you take a look at air health effects, particularly in vulnerable populations, there is evidence to suggest that smog, in particular, does have an impact on seniors as a vulnerable population--so not children, but a different vulnerable population. And those who have pre-existing health conditions do suffer more as a result of what are often described as “bad air days”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I'm going to go on to Mr. Lussier, and then we'll come back to Mr. Spady.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Chair, this committee received documents from two agencies about private testing for pollutants. Mr. Freeman has tabled an excellent study conducted with Mr. Cook's participation on children's contamination.
Mr. Gaudet or Ms. Cooper, did your organizations test children for contaminants?
Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association
The role that I play as researcher in my organization is to review the secondary literature. I don't have the resources to do that kind of original research myself, but I'm told I'm very good at knowledge translation. That's why I have put together the primer and the summary materials that I've given you today, for the sake of educating parents, to both help them avoid hidden and known risks now and to help them engage in this kind of process to be able to see reforms happen, so that the overall environmental protection is improved for them and for their children.
Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Department of Health
Just very briefly, because the question was about studies, and in the spirit of transparency, Health Canada is working with Statistics Canada to do, as was pointed out, a one-time bio-monitoring study, something we hope can be annualized. It is worth noting that at this point in time the age break for children does not go quite as young as both departments would ideally like. I believe it's six years, so we're not getting down to the youngest of children.