Evidence of meeting #22 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consumers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, we only have a minute. Please, you're over time.
Ms. Coombs, could you please answer this question? Thanks.
5 p.m.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
I can try to answer about what the bill does, the general prohibition. To use the example of lead in toys, last year we had two incidents in which we had recalls. There were provisions in place for the company to voluntarily do that. Now that's not going to be the situation: the government will take action and force the company to do it.
As a mom, I think that's a good thing. I do, Judy.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, your time is up. We've gone over time. I'm sorry. You're being mischievous here today.
Having said that, can I ask, please, the permission of the committee to ask a question?
5 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
All right, thank you.
Mr. Schwarcz, I have a question for you. I was listening very carefully to what you were saying, and I was trying to sort it all out. From my point of view, you were saying—and please correct me, if I'm wrong—that there were labels put on things when perhaps there wasn't the proper science done to prove that there is a carcinogen in the product that would cause cancer or harm somebody. Is that right?
And you said these labels should not be put on, because there could be mass confusion, because things can become too labelled and you cry wolf too often, and people don't pay attention. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Well, I have a question for you. If doctors and scientists know there is a population that is getting cancer at an increased rate, and there's one variable in place and it is that certain products have been imposed upon that population over time, then even though scientists may have tested it in rats but haven't tested it in humans, why do you think it isn't it better to make sure that there's a precaution? We're talking about a life and death situation with people. Could I have your opinion on that point?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Office for Science and Society, McGill University
Of course you have to have a precaution, as long as you have the scientific evidence of what you're cautioning against.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I understand that, but can I just define it a little better? My background is science, so I'm all for science identification. When you mean science identification, in the real world sometimes science is only done on rats. I think Dr. Bennett made a very good point when she said rats live in sewers and they're....
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
They're good at cleansing. Thank you.
Having said that, hopefully most humans aren't in this position. So if there is a population, would you say that you would not consider the science in this case scientific evidence, because it's not actually tested on humans? I just need to know that.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Office for Science and Society, McGill University
No. It's not cut and dried like that. We have to look at a specific issue. If you can tell me a specific chemical, then we can talk about it.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming in today, because your testimony has been very enlightening.
I want to talk to the Brain Injury Association. I was a little concerned when you stated that you didn't feel you were consulted. I want to make sure that we do the consultation at least now.
You had a short speech at the beginning. Have you made a written submission to our committee?
5:05 p.m.
Board Member, Preventable Injuries and Health Safety, Brain Injury Association of Canada
We will be doing so.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
You will be? Excellent. Thank you very much; that's great.
Are you pleased to know that Bill C-6 can be used to regulate snow and ski helmets and to ensure that helmets are labelled properly so that consumers know they are purchasing safe products?
5:05 p.m.
Board Member, Preventable Injuries and Health Safety, Brain Injury Association of Canada
Our concern primarily is implementation. In the particular case when you've gone through the process with the Canadian Standards Association through consensus and good science, and that standard is sitting on a shelf, it becomes very frustrating. It's the implementation time that is particularly of interest for us and that I'm sure would interest the Canadian Standards Association, going into the future, for other endeavours.
When you've gone through a consensus process, particularly for labelling—and we've addressed this in part of our standard.... We're particularly concerned that we cannot implement injury prevention strategies across the country, if we can't reference a standard. This has been particularly frustrating for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The ski industry as a whole can't reference a standard for helmet use, which has become a real problem. Even for parents who are putting their kids on toboggans, it becomes a real issue. Repetitive head injury, particularly in managing concussion, is becoming very important, particularly to families who have their children in multiple sports.
The science we're understanding now is that repetitive head injury is leading to learning and behavioural problems and early onset of dementia—all sorts of issues that we have to address. When something like this has gone through a process that we've already done and is sitting either in the state of a private member's bill in the House of Commons or sitting on a shelf not being used, I can't see how it's benefiting Canadians.
So our concern is implementation time, both under the Hazardous Products Act and, in moving forward into any new legislation, in how you deal with things in a timely fashion when you've gone through a consultation process.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I think everybody on this committee would share frustration about how long it takes for things to happen. I think we'd also agree that we're very pleased that we actually are taking action on this issue. Hopefully the bill will pass and we'll have a good bill that is also flexible, because in a situation like the one you're looking at, we're learning about repetitive head trauma.
I'm curious. Do you have any recommendation? There are private members' bills out there, and quite often they can take forever to get through, if they ever even come up. You can put things into legislation, and it appears pretty solid, and then you have regulations. Regulations are a little more adaptable, because legislation can take forever.
Do you have a recommendation or a preference? Do you want to deal with it in a legislative way, or would you prefer to see it in a regulatory way that might let it be a little more adaptable? Or does it matter?
5:10 p.m.
Board Member, Preventable Injuries and Health Safety, Brain Injury Association of Canada
What matters to us is changing the culture. We're finished with the standards for ski and snowboard helmets. There are a whole host of other helmets for us that are out there and that don't need any standards. We can't take years to go through those as well. So whatever it is for a parliamentarian that helps to speed up a process....
I'm not talking about being negligent in the process. I'm just thinking that when you've developed something with a consensus and good science, there is a time to move forward.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
That's the thing about flexibility, and the general prohibition that's in this bill should address it, because the government can take these things off that aren't safe.
Is that a good idea, in your opinion?
5:10 p.m.
Board Member, Preventable Injuries and Health Safety, Brain Injury Association of Canada
The Brain Injury Association of Canada would like to take a little more time to study it, because we feel we haven't had enough time to sit with this. We would certainly like to be able to make a written submission probably within the next couple of weeks on that.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
We would welcome and look forward to it. I think everybody is in agreement.
Thank you very much.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Dr. Carrie, could I interrupt you? I guess your time is up. I thought you were going to take both slots. I was going to make everyone aware that you were going to continue on to the next spot, but I understand Mr. Uppal is doing it.
