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.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
You want them to go through all the fine print with their glossary of terms of anything that's ever been known to be carcinogenic. It will be up to them to stand there in the grocery store or the Canadian Tire store and figure this out for themselves.
Director, Office for Science and Society, McGill University
No, I think it's up to government to ban any product that isn't safe for consumers to purchase.
I think the evaluation process has to be done, not by the consumer--
Liberal
Director, Office for Science and Society, McGill University
To ban bisphenol A is totally unrealistic. You can ban certain uses of bisphenol A. You can ban certain contexts of bisphenol A. If we bring up the baby bottle issue, which is a very appropriate one, I think that was a good decision, since there the precautionary principle can be put into effect because you do not need to make baby bottles out of polycarbonates. There certainly are alternatives that do not raise the question--
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Studies show that if things are heated up in a vessel containing BPA, it leaches in and is absorbed. In just regular water bottles, the science isn't there yet, but as soon as the manufacturers decided to put “BPA-free” on their bottles, Canadians chose to be safe and to take the precautionary principle. They said, “Do I want this one, with BPA, or do I want this one, without BPA?”
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm so sorry, your time is running out.
Could you quickly answer that?
Director, Office for Science and Society, McGill University
I have absolutely no objection to that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm sorry, Dr. Bennett. We have to go on to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I have to be fair to everyone.
Thank you, Dr. Bennett. In fact, we went over time with you, Dr. Bennett. I'm so sorry, and I'm not meaning to be rude. Thank you.
Go ahead, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Like my colleague, I also think that knowledge helps you to live. I don't think ignorance is bliss, and I think that our job in this bill is to try to make sure that dangerous products aren't on the market. If we can't get that far, then we've got to at least give consumers the information so that they can choose. The growing incidence of breast cancer linked to reproductive toxins and neurotoxins can't be ignored. We as a committee have to take responsibility for this.
My question is back to Shannon, because you're suggesting we shouldn't label, yet you haven't recommended the ban. Would you agree, then, with an amendment that has been suggested by some other organizations, which is that our act should have a hot list similar to what we have for cosmetics, in which we list carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxins, and neurotoxins? These substances should be prohibited in products, with exceptions granted only to the extent that the product is essential, and with the acknowledgment that there's probably a traceable or bottom-line level you have to have there naturally, as Joe said with respect to lead, and that it's a bare minimum. Any product containing such chemicals would be required to carry a hazard label such as that required in California, Vermont, and the European Union.
Do you have a problem with that, Shannon?
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
I just don't know how meaningful that is to Canadians. The list context that you're proposing, the list approach, which is to use IARC-listed substances or CEPA-listed toxic substances--
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
If it's not meaningful, then what do you suggest? Do you, as a mother or as a representative of this organization, think it's okay to have lead and phthalates in children's toys?
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
I do not think it's appropriate. In fact, I want meaningful information. I absolutely want to be able to make the right choice about the right product. I don't disagree, but I don't agree with a list-based approach that would label substances on the IARC list that have been assessed in a particular context as such when they can be properly formulated into a product to prevent cancer.
I just don't think that's meaningful to consumers. I don't think that we should, as Dr. Schwarcz said, cry wolf and put the label on everything. Then it becomes meaningless. We want precautionary labelling that's currently on our products to be meaningful--
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I'm not suggesting that we put labelling on everything. I'm saying we should go to the hot list approach. Let's look at those things that we know, as you just admitted, are problematic, especially for children. We're not talking now about drinking something that's poisonous; we're talking about exposure to clothing, toys, jewellery, furniture. We're talking about what could be a chronic accumulation and a condition. What do you do in that case?
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
My understanding is that the general prohibition will allow the government to take action. Having a list—
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Do you see anything in this bill that says the government “will” ban products that have been identified as toxic and dangerous for children? Is there anything in this bill that says this government's going to ban lead and phthalates in children's toys or clothing? Where? Show me.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
Well, the general prohibition will enable the government to take action.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
However, can I ask you a question? If you're going to warn consumers that there are carcinogens in product X.... Let's say, for example, you use the CEPA toxic list. Hydroquinone is on that list. Are you saying that we should label the skin lightening cream and blueberries, because the greatest exposure to consumers is blueberries? If you're going to take an approach that's hazard-based, it has to be holistic. You can't just target consumer products; it has to be food as well. There has to be a consistent approach.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I think we can start, though. We as members of Parliament have to make a commitment to consumers that we're going to at least try to get close to the precautionary principle. We have to do our utmost to ensure that at least in areas in which we know there are serious problems involving carcinogens, neurotoxins, reproductive toxins—and there's clear research that shows the exposure to those things in toys, in products, in food over a period of time can lead to serious problems.... We have to do something. We can't just say the government “may”, or the government, “if it wants to”....
This bill doesn't even say that if they know of something dangerous—such as, for example, in CTV's report the other day about car seats, or CBC's report saying car seats are dangerous, according to Transport Canada, but that they're not releasing the information.... This bill doesn't require the government to release that information. Goodness, it's really a toothless tiger, unless we can put some of that into it.
What would you suggest we do? From your perspective as a mother, what would you do to protect yourself and your kids?
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
As a mom, I think Bill C-6 is going to do a good job; I do.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
I think Bill C-6 is going to improve the current situation.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
Well, with respect to—