Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak to this bill.
We think this legislation is an important step in bringing Canada up to the standards of other countries in terms of consumer protection from toxic chemicals. We feel this legislation could be greatly strengthened, however, to place Canada among the global leaders in consumer protection and to promote clean technology and jobs in the new economy.
I'd like to propose some possible amendments that we, along with other organizations, believe would significantly improve the bill while still addressing many of the concerns you heard from departmental officials earlier this week. I've submitted to the committee a more comprehensive list of recommendations, which I believe you have before you. They were distributed by the clerk.
I'd like to focus my comments on those dealing specifically with the phase-out of toxic chemicals and a labelling provision to ensure that consumers are made aware that a toxic chemical is contained in a consumer product. The idea here is that if a chemical causes cancer or is a reproductive toxin, there's really no reason it should be used in a consumer product. It was argued here earlier this week that you can't eliminate some chemicals from a product, given the technologies available to detect chemicals at smaller and smaller levels. However, in virtually all cases, including here in Canada, when government bans a chemical, a de minimis threshold is established.
Under California's Proposition 65 law, for example--this is a law that has been in place for more than two decades--the government establishes safe use thresholds that allow well-accepted de minimis thresholds for each substance. Even in Canada's own Hazardous Products Act we allow for background levels of lead under what we call a ban on lead in children's jewellery. These levels are in line with background levels of these substances. This is a well-accepted regulatory practice.
Some may argue that if the level of a chemical is safe, there's no reason to restrict it from a product. However, for many carcinogens, there is no known safe level, and for many developmental toxins it's been shown that low doses may actually be more hazardous than higher doses.
Even beyond these examples, to say that the concentration of a toxic chemical falls below a risk threshold is not the same as saying that it's safe. This approach also seems to ignore the effects of cancer-causing agents in our environment and the need to reduce harmful chemical exposure population-wide.
By focusing on the individual effects resulting from each product use, the department is ignoring the cumulative and synergistic effects of exposure. While exposure from a single product may fall below a risk threshold, there is still a need to reduce overall exposure for many chemicals that have multiple sources and to reduce those sources wherever possible. This is consistent with the precautionary approach, the specific principle of Bill C-6, as well as with international environmental law. The department's approach would appear to be directly contrary to this principle, demanding full scientific certainty before acting to prevent adverse effects.
This is all the more important with regard to environmental exposure. Addressing broader environmental harm caused by consumer products is embedded in the preamble of Bill C-6, yet the department's risk threshold approach--examining one chemical's risk for one person from one product--would often preclude a broader analysis of environmental harm.
For these reasons, we propose a five-year phase-out of chemicals that are known to be potentially carcinogenic or that are reproductive toxins. We've included an exemption provision for the small number of cases in which a chemical can be shown to be harmless and for cases that would involve severe economic hardship. The general prohibition in the bill should also explicitly make reference to exposure via the environment.
Second, I'd like to deal with the labelling issue that came up in testimony earlier this week and that my colleague Ms. Checkland mentioned in her testimony today. As Ms. Checkland has pointed out, there is no assurance that the globally harmonized system will be in place any time soon. However, if a GHS labelling provision is indeed just around the corner, a statutory backstop that provides a legal requirement for labelling within one or two years should only help the department to focus its discussions with stakeholders.
There are some key elements that this legal requirement for labelling must include.
The first is that the list of products covered by the labelling requirement must be comprehensive. As Ms. Checkland pointed out, the current range of products being considered by the department under the GHS system is quite narrow. It does not include the vast majority of household items, including toys, consumer electronics, household furnishings, clothing and textiles, and many other products. The labelling provisions should cover all products that fall under the proposed new Consumer Product Safety Act.
Second, the chemicals on the labelling requirement list should include all chemicals that have been identified as health toxins under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The list should also include internationally listed carcinogens and developmental toxins. Departmental officials raised a number of examples of where such chemicals are in substances such as coffee. That was one of the examples they gave. However, these examples are mainly in the food and drug sector and are well beyond the scope of this bill. Even in the smaller number of cases where the chemical poses no significant health risk in a particular product, the committee can easily put in place an exemption provision.
Third, the label itself should be crafted with a clear hazard label, with the particular health hazard readily apparent to the consumer.
This approach, with these three elements, is consistent with the department's current intentions under the GHS, but their approach would have to be broadened to include far more sectors and more specified chemicals.
Bill C-6 does provide the authority for the minister to require labelling, but such discretionary provisions already exist in CEPA and other legislation and are not being significantly used. Clearly, without a legal requirement, this sort of labelling is very unlikely to happen.
Other jurisdictions globally have moved ahead of Canada on reducing the risks from toxic chemicals in consumer products. Since 1987, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, what I referred to earlier as Proposition 65, has required warning labels for approximately 775 carcinogenic and reproductive toxins. Other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, Massachusetts, and now Ontario, have employed a regulatory approach of eliminating toxic chemicals in the production process and requiring substitution of safer alternatives. These approaches go well beyond the safe threshold approach the department advocates.
We hope the committee will consider bringing Canada up to the standards of these leading jurisdictions and increasing the level of protection afforded to Canadian consumers by providing much-needed information and phasing out toxic chemicals from consumer products.
Thank you.