Health Committee on May 28th, 2009

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

What do you mean “used for bicycle tires”?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Ms. Coombs, could I ask a couple of questions? I know that you represent a series of companies. When they have to comply with California or Europe because the standards are different, do they?

[Shannon Coombs]

Our members meet and exceed the law of Canada. Our companies meet and exceed the law of any jurisdiction they are selling products in--absolutely.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay. So they're meeting California's standard and the European standard?

[Shannon Coombs]

They sell products into California. Yes, they meet proposition 65. However, what has happened in our experience on proposition 65 is that there tends to be over-labelling. The companies don't want to be sued. This is specifically with reference to food companies, which have been the target. Potatoes have been targeted by groups, as have chocolate, tuna, and even vinegar, and there has been litigation pending on all of those particular foods--

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt. If they're selling products in California and in Europe, are they required to meet the standards in both regions?

[Shannon Coombs]

Yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

And so they are--is that correct?

[Shannon Coombs]

Yes, but this is Canada, and we have CCCR. We do not have a hazard-based type of classification. We're a very different society from California and Europe.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, but they are meeting those standards, so is there any reason why the industry couldn't comply if there were chronic health labelling requirements here?

[Shannon Coombs]

What type of chronic labelling are you looking for? Because in Europe they have GHS, which is different. There hasn't been any kind of commitment here yet as to what GHS would look like in Canada. As I said, our position has been that we support GHS and chronic labelling; however, we want it to be risk-based, and there's been no decision made by the government as to which approach that would be.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

And I'm not putting forth an approach. I'm just wondering, if we're able to meet the standards in other regions, could we do this here?

Dr. Schwarcz, if I could ask you a question, I think we hear repeatedly that we don't want consumers to be overwhelmed by too much labelling. How would you respond to that?

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

I wouldn't make that criticism. I think the labelling is fine as long as the information is meaningful and correct. I certainly have nothing against labelling, but I would suggest that we also have to emphasize education so that people know what to look for and what the chemicals mean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt.

We'll now go to Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The diversity of presenters here today certainly shows how wide the impact of this bill is going to be. It certainly is going to reach deeply into the lives of Canadians.

I have a number of perhaps shorter questions. The first question I have is for the Brain Injury Association. I understand that Canada is responsible for standards around quality of helmets, but I think we routinely have to be very sensitive to what is provincial jurisdiction. I know that in British Columbia I have to wear a bike helmet. I was quite surprised to come to Ontario and see many adults without helmets.

For my first question, I would like to have some comments from you in that area. Have you been working with the different provinces and territories in terms of legislation?

[Richard Kinar]

We're actually not here to talk about obligatory helmet use. What we're talking about are standards and how they apply to this new proposed bill and the Hazardous Products Act. We've developed what are the world's best standards for ski and snowboard helmets. It was quite an extensive consensus process. It's gone on for years. This new best standard is actually just sitting on a shelf waiting to have the Hazardous Products Act applied to it.

So for us, it's actually about timing. When you participate in a standard, have stakeholders across the country and some of the best scientists participating, and develop a new standard that's sitting there because this act hasn't been applied, it becomes quite frustrating. That was a reason for our involvement and our interest in not only the Hazardous Products Act but in any amendments coming up to this new bill: how you apply it and when it gets applied.

We've developed the standard. The standard has nothing to do with obligatory helmet use. It has to do with parents purchasing the best helmet they can possibly get when they choose to purchase helmets for their children. In Canada, we have no standards for most helmets, other than hockey helmets, which are classified right now under the Hazardous Products Act. That's what is of real concern to us: when the act gets applied and when we actually get a chance to use a new standard and introduce it to the Canadian market. The old standards are very, very old.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Right now, Bill C-6 does have provisions for misleading claims regarding certification and product safety. Is that going to help?

[Richard Kinar]

It's not going to help in the sense that it's not going to force manufacturers to use a new standard. For example, in our particular case, we've developed a new standard based on good science. The existing helmet manufacturers have refused to use that standard unless they are forced to do so by the government. They've stated that. They participated in developing the new standard through consensus, but once again, when asked if they would use it, they're looking to leadership from the federal government.

This is a federal government jurisdiction and that's the part that particularly interests us with the old Hazardous Products Act and this new bill: who decides, and when, to actually use it? In our particular case, it's affecting our children's health. Risky sport is contributing to an epidemic of head injury in this country. Unfortunately, in that category of preventable injury, it's costing taxpayers $14.7 billion a year. Head injury is the leading killer of males under the age of 35.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

I'll go to my next question.

You've talked about toys and decibel levels. You talked about how the current system for Canadian-produced toys is working very well. If there is an issue with a toy that's come in from a different country, you get a very quick response from Health Canada. You also indicated that you're aware they're looking at changing their standards.

It seems that if we change the standards to 65 decibels.... We have a system that's working pretty well. I guess that would be my question. If we have a system and we're really just looking at standards being adjusted, it doesn't seem to me that it needs to come into this bill.

[Ondina Love]

Thank you for your question.

The legislation currently is 100 decibels, which is too loud. You can look at international standards. We're looking at legislation that would bring it down to the World Health Organization level of 75 decibels. Once it's set at 75, I'm very confident that Health Canada will continue to react and test those toys that exceed 75 decibels.

In the last meeting we had with Health Canada, over a year ago, they tested 228 toys and one exceeded 100 decibels. They could not give us information on how many exceeded 85 decibels or even 75 decibels.

I'm concerned, as a parent especially, about those toys that exceed 75 decibels and the danger they pose to our children's hearing. The current decibel level is too high. That's why it needs to be looked in either legislation or in regulation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Ms. Love.

We'll now go to Monsieur Dufour.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks as well to the witnesses for being here with us today.

Mr. Schwarcz, you've been questioned a lot today in committee. At the very start of your presentation, you cited some very interesting facts. You said that some substances might be carcinogenic and that even small quantities of those carcinogens raised at times unfounded fears in citizens. You cited the example of California, where you've recently been. You said that excessive labelling might be counter-productive because, at some point, people became totally indifferent to the matter.

Despite my young age, I get the impression that everything has become carcinogenic in the past 20 years or so. We're discovering carcinogenic elements in everything. I don't believe that was previously the case. Scientific progress is definitely enabling us to make certain discoveries, but perhaps sometimes we go too far. We may not have enough scientific data to show that a substance is really carcinogenic. You're making the public aware of these issues on a radio program, if I correctly understood. Do you think there is a lack of information, of scientific data, and that it's not being sufficiently explained to people that certain substances may indeed be carcinogenic, but that quantities are so small they virtually have no impact on the consumer?

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

I'm glad you asked that question. It allows me to elaborate on a topic that I've just brought up, and that's the importance of education. It really is the crux of the matter.

I think we can all agree that our education in science, especially at the elementary school level and the high school level, is not what it should be. There are students who can graduate from high school without ever having had a whole course in chemistry or physics or biology, and yet they will eventually become consumers. They will use chemistry from morning until night, and will be asked to make decisions about things like phthalates and bisphenol A--very complex issues--without having the background.

So yes, I'm certainly in favour of more and more education. I do agree that there has been an overemphasis on risks in life. I see this on a daily basis. I get literally dozens of phone calls and e-mails through my office every day. My impression is that people are so worried about dying, they're forgetting about living. They're focusing in on minor things.

Of course, as our analytical capabilities get better and better, there will be more and more things to worry about. Eventually we find that everything is contaminated by everything else, when we get down to the level of parts per trillion.

We do need to bring some rational thinking into this and to make decisions based upon the available evidence. I think it is important to get the message across that there's no such thing as a risk-free society. It is always a question of evaluating risks and evaluating them against the benefits.

When we look to exercise the precautionary principle, that is motherhood and apple pie; of course we want to do that. But we also have to look at the other side--namely, what is the risk of exercising the precautionary principle? If we're going to replace one substance with another, are we absolutely sure that the other substance has been properly evaluated?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That substance could prove to be more dangerous than the first.

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

Exactly.