Environment Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

They've put down in a legal text what I believe is the consensus I've heard from meetings, and again, I want to thank those who met to try to find some middle ground. The department will do the overview, but what you see in front of you is what I believe is the consensus, the middle ground.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Pulling together all the amendments into an integrated package.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Exactly.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

So the amendments flow from this.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Exactly.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I would like the minutes to reflect that we are talking about consensus, but the Bloc Québécois was not consulted about the new amendments. I would like that considered before we talk about consensus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Can we carry on with the department? Just give us the overview, I think, and then let's get on with this. We are going to finish this today or we'll lock the doors and you'll all be here until we do.

Go ahead.

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to speak from the paper that I believe everyone has, which is the consolidated amendments, and that will be the architecture I will speak to. Then we'll have to map that into the individual motions as we move through.

First of all, we have introduced a new clause 2.1, which is essentially a definition to determine what would or would not be determined to be a phthalate, for the purpose of taking any action in this bill. I believe that came from a suggestion of one of the members. We like that idea and we incorporated that.

The next thing deals with the clause related to regulations, and the regulations in the previous version of the bill dealt with regulating a variety of areas for all three of the substances being captured in this bill, the DEHP, the BBP, and the DBP.

We are faced with the issue of already doing risk assessments on DBP and BBP and finding them non-toxic, so it would be very difficult for the department to convince the Governor in Council to add them to schedule 1 and then take action under CEPA, adding to schedule 1 under CEPA. We proposed and we've introduced a clause at the end of this package, clause 7, which would commit the ministers of health and the environment to reassess those two substances within 24 months. We're very much taking into consideration some of the commentary we heard from witnesses and members about doing cumulative assessments and also looking at exposure from cosmetics and other consumer products.

So we've moved DBP and DEHP. We cannot move to do anything with them until we have a risk assessment that says there is a risk to human health. We put that clause at the end of the revised bill.

Then moving on with what we can do with DEHP, the new clause 3 would deal with cosmetics. We would be prohibiting the use of DEHP in cosmetics, using the Food and Drugs Act. So that's what clause 3 is all about.

Moving on to clause 4, we would be looking at toys and other child care products like soothers and teethers, things that could go into the mouths of children under three. We would be using the Hazardous Products Act to prohibit those products from containing DEHP, and that is a step forward. We do that on a voluntary basis right now, and this will expand the age range and the types of products we'd be dealing with and we would put them into a regulation.

These clauses 3, 4, and 5 will all be introduced as one motion.

The fifth picks up on the desire of some commentary we heard to put in the idea of precaution, so we've made reference to the use of the precautionary principle in clauses 3 and 4. We've added a new clause 5 that uses the definition of the precautionary principle in CEPA and linked it to the actions that would be taken under the Food And Drugs Act and under the Hazardous Products Act.

So that is the package that deals with cosmetics and toys and other child care products that could be put in the mouths of children.

Then we move on to a very long clause 6, which is an approach we see as a compromise approach to deal with the issues of DEHP in medical products while at the same time ensuring we have access to life-saving medical devices that are very much needed and for which there may not be safe substitutes available.

There is a whole range of initiatives to deal with that, and we've introduced three new ideas based on the ideas that have come forward in the last couple of days. We can go into them when we get to that clause.

Then finally, the last one I've spoken to already, and that's the requirement to reassess DBP and BBP.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Good. Thank you.

Mr. Cullen, do you want to make a brief comment about what you have in front of you?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Sure.

First of all, thank you to the department officials for arranging some of this and putting it into language that the committee can understand and consider.

As Mr. Warawa said earlier, through the conversations, there's in the range of a 90% agreement on the way to cast this bill forward. The 10% that's off for us remains around the clauses 3 and 4 that were listed. I think this is more just seen as a difference of opinion based upon what we heard from witnesses. Clauses 3 and 4 only deal with one of the three phthalates. As you will see--I believe it's here, and I'm not sure which one it refers to in your package--we have an amendment that would change clauses 3 and 4 a bit, that would include all three of the products.

There are two reasons primarily. One reason is that we still see significant health concerns with BBP and DBP. We also see other jurisdictions having gone that route, and manufacturers have, in effect, taken some of these chemicals out of the products already. I explained this to the parliamentary secretary earlier. One of our main concerns is our inability right now in this country to know for certain, if we walk down to the dollar store in the mall, that products coming from China, particularly, and from some of the other countries.... We have a limited ability to actually understand whether these chemicals are in there without going the route of eliminating them, particularly with children's toys, and ones that we know will be placed in their mouths.

I don't want to overfocus on that piece. What I've said to the government and to other committee members is that we're comfortable with the package. The point of difference we're comfortable with committee members considering and having a vote on, and that difference of opinion will be expressed by the various parties and members of Parliament sitting at the committee. So overall we're glad of the conversations that have been had.

In terms of the medical devices in clause 6, this was in direct response to Mr. Bigras' comment. The only slight difference and change we would make is that when you get all the way down to paragraph 6(e), we want to strengthen the language a bit so that there's specific instruction to government to have a label on medical devices that contain DEHP. This was a concession we intended to make to Mr. Bigras, rather than the outright ban, because they raise concerns, particularly from Quebec. Although other hospitals and provinces are starting to go DEHP-free in their devices, and products are being made, we'll make that concession in order to accommodate Mr. Bigras' concern. We want that language strengthened a bit so we're very clear that the government is seeking, I believe within 24 months or 18 months, that there will be a labelling process going on. We thought that was reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

We'll go back to Mr. Warawa briefly.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you. I have a quick question for Mr. Cullen, through you.

On paragraph 6(c), it deals with what you just mentioned regarding labelling. It would be required, within 24 months after coming into force, that there would be labelling on medical devices that contain DEHP. Would that alleviate those concerns?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Correct. I misspoke myself a bit. In paragraph 6(e), if committee members will read along:

within 18 months after the coming into force of this Act, prepare a list of medical devices that do not contain bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate that are sold in or imported into Canada

The addition we were making--thank you for that, Mr. Warawa--reads:

and list the DEHP-containing medical devices these devices can replace;

One of the things we're looking for is a replacement and an acknowledgement of what's coming in and what's replaceable. I suppose the intention of a lot of this is that we're looking for an eventual phase-out of this product, because we heard from industry that they're making the products right now. We heard from hospital groups that they are essentially moving in that direction. While we're not requiring or certainly forcing hospitals to do that, in a sense this is an encouragement towards that. So when devices are coming into the country, or if there are alternatives...that those be noted as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Good. Thank you.

Certainly I congratulate all members for working together and coming up with something that seems much easier to deal with, and congratulations for listening to my advice, I guess, or the advice of all of us.

Mr. Bigras, do you have a comment you'd like to make at this point?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, this will be an initial reaction because I am not involved in the agreement that has been made between the two parties, and perhaps even with the third party -- I do not know because its representative has not yet spoken. The interesting aspect of what has been presented to us is first of all clause 3 that specifies the precautionary principle. I think that this is an interesting step forward that could even be written into other acts. I think that it is a very interesting and very important point.

Secondly, in clause 6, I feel that a balance has been achieved in the spirit of the amendment, in the sense that it also allows us to recognize that there can be risks. As I understand it, everything must be spelled out in the labelling, but it does not prevent people's access to medical treatment. So, with the transparency, the information given to medical technicians, and the desire to make sure that the public is informed, I think that an appropriate balance has been written into the amendments that are before us. But we can perhaps talk about that when we move to clause-by-clause study of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Very briefly, we'll go to Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

As a brief comment, I apologize to Mr. Bigras for not consulting him. The reality is that there just was not time. Comments that he made last Tuesday and before that were incorporated into the consensus. They were very much considered, and I appreciate his commitment to dealing with this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Finally, Mr. McGuinty or Mr. Godfrey, do you have a brief comment before we get started here?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

What we're trying to do on our side is facilitate the process and stay out of traffic, if I can put it that way. If there are any ways in which we can continue to broker deals, we will do so, but our chief purpose in being here is to get the bill done in a way that will make it a better bill, and not to try to add too much value in a way that would complicate matters further than they already are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I appreciate your not being a dangerous driver. That helps a lot in getting to where we need to go.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

A dangerous pedestrian is more like it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let's begin. I've briefly talked with the clerks. They're trying to get caught up here, in terms of advice.

Can we start with new clause 2.1?

We were under discussion of Mr. Warawa's amendment. In order to go back and start with new clause 2.1, which seems the logical approach, I would need consent of all members here to let us do that, so that we could go back, start with new clause 2.1, and then move on to clause 3, and so on.

Do I have consensus?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.