Health Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I welcome everyone to the health committee. I want to welcome all our guests today. We're very pleased that you could come and join us.

Today we have Kathleen Cooper, the senior researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association. From the Canadian Health Coalition, we have Michael McBane, coordinator; from the David Suzuki Foundation, we have Lisa Gue, environmental health policy analyst; and from Consumer Health Products Canada, we have David Skinner, president, and Gerry Harrington, director of public affairs.

We welcome you all today. The first round will be seven minutes, and questions and answers will follow your presentations. You basically have seven minutes to do your presentations.

We will start with Kathleen Cooper, senior researcher for the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

[Kathleen Cooper, Senior Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Thank you.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association is a public interest organization and an Ontario legal aid clinic. Alongside legal representation, our legal aid work is equally about law reform.

In responding to Bill C-6,, we think in terms of protecting the most vulnerable within the broader public interest. For the same reasons, my work for many years has focused on the greater vulnerability of children to pollution and chemical exposures.

Yesterday your committee received a report called “First Steps in Lifelong Health” from the Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and Environment, a group of medical, public health, environmental, and child care organizations, for which I chair the coordinating committee. We also provided a cover letter to orient you to that report's recommendations on product safety issues.

There is a great deal of scientific evidence about the greater exposure and vulnerability of children to pollution and toxic substances. Of greatest concern are exposures during pregnancy. At particular risk are women and children living in poverty, which affects over one million children in Canada. Evidence is growing that boys appear to be faring worse than girls, and aboriginal children in Canada can be at the greatest risk. Thankfully, most children in Canada are healthy, but there are rising trends in certain diseases and disorders that are very troubling, and pollution and chemical exposures are implicated.

After hearing Dr. Schwarcz's testimony last Thursday, I chose to focus my remarks on our educational work and so have also tabled with you today four of our publications. In the discussion about labelling on Thursday, Dr. Schwarcz said repeatedly that information about the risks of chronic toxicity of chemicals in products is far too complex for people to understand. I beg to differ. Our partnership has a proven track record of translating this complex knowledge with accuracy and integrity. Our primer on child health and the environment was extensively peer-reviewed by Health Canada officials among many other experts. The quality of our knowledge translation is one of several reasons why the Canadian Paediatric Society recently decided to join our partnership.

The evidence tells us that, alongside air pollution and pesticides, consumer products are the most important area on which to focus our attention. It also tells us to focus on children's respiratory health, impacts on children's developing brains, two increasingly common birth defects in boys, and cancer in young adults.

We agree that there is enormous complexity and uncertainty about these health risks, but it is not accurate to say, as Health Canada presented to you on May 5, that the assessment of chemicals under the chemicals management plan takes into account cumulative exposures and risks. Only for two groups of similar pesticides, and to some extent for smog-forming air pollutants, have risk assessments by regulatory agencies begun to account for the combined impact of groups of chemicals. Nowhere in the world are these assessments yet able to determine the combined impact of the low levels of varied and dissimilar pollutants and chemicals to which we are all exposed every day.

It is not difficult for pregnant women or parents to understand that a possible problem exists from exposures to these chemical complex mixtures, even if the experts cannot tell them what the impact might he on their children's health. Their reaction is entirely reasonable. They want to play it safe. They want to know where they should focus their attention, and how they can avoid these exposures. They want to apply precaution, and they want their governments to do the same.

To provide one example, during four years of educational workshops held across the country, we have asked people to consider the contents of their vacuum cleaner bag and their dryer lint. In both cases, almost everyone in those workshops was surprised to learn that, alongside dust and soil particles, hair, fabric fibres, and skin flakes, you can also find, concentrated in your house dust, low levels of chemicals that are known to be toxic, like brominated flame retardants from your furniture and computers, perfluorochemicals used as stain repellants, maybe some pesticides, phthalates, bisphenol A, short chain chlorinated paraffins, and metals like lead and mercury, among others.

We tell parents about this chemical mix for three reasons. First, it illustrates reality: We are exposed to multiple chemicals from multiple sources. Second, those sources are often from consumer products. Third, it underscores the fact that house dust is one of the most important places where children can be exposed when they are crawling on the floor or putting toys or fingers in their mouths. With this knowledge, parents can focus attention where it matters, and they can take personal actions to avoid or reduce exposures. That is just one example. We also talk about food containers and packaging, the need to follow fish advisories, safe renovations, and other issues. I don't have time for more details except to say that parents immediately want to know how they can make better choices in buying products, and how can they avoid products with toxic substances.

All we can tell them is that very limited but important information is on some labels. You've talked about the consumer chemicals and containers regulation and related efforts within the proposed globally harmonized system. This labelling provides very important information, and Canada does an excellent job in this limited area.

It's almost entirely, although not exclusively, about acute hazards, and it's not enough. To avoid products containing chemicals associated with cancer or reproductive toxicity or developmental neurotoxicity, like most of those I mentioned in the vacuum bag, we tell parents that this information should be required on the product label, but it isn't. The result is that well-intentioned people are denied important information that would enable them to lower their children's exposures. Government policy should be helping, not thwarting, these kinds of efforts.

I brought with me today an example of a label from California. It's a string of garden lights for indoor or outdoor use, and it says:

CAUTION: PROP 65 WARNING: Handling the coated electrical wires of this product exposes you to lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after use.

In very few words, in very little space on this packaging, it gives me five useful pieces of information. It gives me the warning, the law that requires it, the chemical of concern, the reasons for the concern, and good precautionary advice, to wash my hands after use. Most plastic-coated electrical wires contain between 2% and 5% lead for fire resistance. This is one of the ways that lead gets into house dust. Old paint is another.

I received the same warning label with a computer that I bought online. The company had chosen to meet the proposition 65 requirements, presumably to cover off any customers in California.

To conclude, I'll say three things. First, with limited time I've left out a lot. At CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, we have sought product recall powers in the Hazardous Products Act for nearly ten years. This and many excellent reforms are in Bill C-6, but it only goes part of the way towards creating the modernized statute described by departmental officials to you. In particular, I hope we can discuss the general prohibition, which is welcome, but we have concerns about its ability to proactively address product safety issues related to concerns about chronic toxicity.

Secondly, in the interests of time, I have focused on labelling issues, but note that for Canadians living in poverty, they need more from product safety laws than an improved right to know. They are most affected by the legacy of our past mistakes. They are using or reusing older furniture and computers, which can expose them to higher levels of now-banned flame retardants. They often live in substandard housing, which can result in greater exposure to pesticides. If the housing predates the 1970s, there are potentially excessive levels of lead in old paint. They are not likely to own good vacuum cleaners. Poor-quality housing could be more difficult to keep clean and it can have moisture problems contributing to respiratory health problems.

Poverty establishes a key determinant of health, and there is good reason to expect that Canadians living in poverty are disproportionately exposed to multiple environmental hazards, including higher levels of chemicals of concern in consumer products.

Finally, I know my colleague Lisa Gue, with the David Suzuki Foundation, will table with you several recommendations concerning improvements to Bill C-6, so to avoid duplication of our presentations, we coordinated in advance. I'll just conclude by saying that the Canadian Environmental Law Association supports the recommendations that she will be making. They are substantially similar to the recommendations tabled with you in our partnership's First Steps in Lifelong Health report.

Thank you, and I hope I didn't speak too quickly for the translators.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you. I did give you a little bit of extra time, Ms. Cooper, because I knew you were coming to the end.

[Kathleen Cooper]

Burning through it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Yes. Thank you so very much.

Now we'll go to the Canadian Health Coalition. Mr. Michael McBane, please.

[Michael McBane, Coordinator, Canadian Health Coalition]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present our views in seven minutes and to at least get on the record for students of social history.

The Canadian Health Coalition is a non-partisan advocacy organization founded in 1979, dedicated to preserving and improving Canada's public health care system. The first goal of our coalition is to create conditions for good health. We think this should be the first objective of the Minister of Health, not to balance health with economic interests.

I'll make a couple of general observations, then some specific recommendations on Bill C-6.

I read the initial presentation of officials from Health Canada to your committee on May 5, and was impressed by members' questions from all sides. However, I must say I found the departmental responses misleading and deceptive.

Bill C-6 is consistent with the Government of Canada's policy of putting economic considerations ahead of protecting health and the environment. Everything else follows from this, including the policy of managing risk that causes preventable death instead of preventing the damage in the first place with a precautionary policy.

Bill C-6 reflects a general pattern of regulatory and legislative initiatives coming out of Health Canada. Rules are drafted by the industry itself, then these rules are not applied or enforced.

Canada's health and safety regulatory agencies have been captured by the very industries they are supposed to regulate. This regulatory capture is formalized in memoranda of understanding, where the industry actually funds the regulator and the regulator enters into a client relationship with the industry. Now, I'm assuming members of Parliament understand this, and this is what fee-for-service is all about, so their client becomes the industry instead of the public.

Regulatory scientists at Health Canada, should they have old-fashioned views of serving the public, will be fired—and have been fired. If Health Canada were putting health protection ahead of economic interests of the chemical producers, why would Dow Chemicals be pointing to Health Canada to use against Canadian municipalities in the NAFTA court challenge on cosmetic use of pesticides? If Health Canada were a world leader in protecting human health from toxic chemicals, as claimed by the associate deputy minister here on May 5, then why is Health Canada, at the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, actively working hand in hand with the food industry to block the reduction of chemical additives and contaminants in infant foods? This outrageous behaviour is well documented by the respected International Baby Food Action Network.

Health Canada has displayed negative leadership in international food and regulatory bodies by systematically blocking the introduction of the precautionary principle in international health regulations. Experience has taught me to approach any health protection legislation sponsored by Health Canada with a critical eye, based on what the department actually does, not on what it says it's doing. I encourage you to continue in this direction, as members of Parliament. Some of you have more experience than others with this departmental double-speak.

The following are specific recommendations on Bill C-6:

First of all, the legislation needs to be precaution-based, not risk-based, and the associate deputy minister acknowledged this was a risk-based piece of legislation. That's the completely wrong starting point. It means parents don't have the right to apply precaution, because the department has already taken the risk decision for you. That means that certain chemical substances should be banned outright.

The second recommendation is to end Health Canada's secrecy about unsafe products. Bill C-6, in the definition section, enshrines into law commercial confidentiality under “confidential business information” and is such that anything that affects a company's bottom line may be kept secret. This provision must be removed from the bill if any one of you believes in the right to know. This provision is completely inconsistent with that.

The third recommendation is that we support a number of our environmental organizations, some of which are here today, in calling for an outright ban on lead, mercury, phthalates, and PBDEs.

Fourth, there needs to be a legislated mandate toward labelling in the meantime, and I understand a number of witnesses will speak to that.

Finally, we have to ensure that whistle-blowers are protected. We strongly support whistle-blower protections for individuals within companies and within Health Canada who uncover wrongdoing. Whistle-blower protection will help bring to light serious safety issues hidden by unscrupulous corporate executives, and will help ensure that scientists and other professional staff at Health Canada may raise concerns about unsafe products without fear of retaliation by the Government of Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go on to the David Suzuki Foundation, with Ms. Lisa Gue, please.

[Lisa Gue, Environmental Health Policy Analyst, David Suzuki Foundation]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear as part of this panel today.

I will focus my comments on the potential for Bill C-6 to address the problem of chronic exposure to toxic substances found in consumer products.

The David Suzuki Foundation examined the need to update Canada's Hazardous Products Act in our 2007 report, Prescription for a Healthy Canada. This report recommended amending the act to authorize mandatory recalls of consumer products containing toxic substances that pose chronic health hazards. We also recommended, as an interim step towards phase-out, product labelling to identify synthetic chemicals and heavy metals remaining in products, which are known to cause or suspected of causing cancer, abnormal development, endocrine disruption, or damage to the nervous, immune, or reproductive systems.

On this basis, we are pleased to see Bill C-6 come before Parliament with the stated aim of modernizing Canada's product safety regime. However, in order to truly deliver on this objective, we feel the bill needs to include specific and enforceable measures that will protect against chronic health hazards in consumer products.

The interpretation section of the bill defines a danger to human health and safety to include chronic adverse effects on human health in addition to acute or immediate harm. This is a very important indication of the intended scope of this bill. Unfortunately, Bill C-6 lacks specific provisions to proactively protect against chronic health hazards in consumer goods. As drafted, the main features of the bill are reactive: enhanced inspection powers, product recall authority, increased penalties for non-compliance. While there is a general prohibition on consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety, this very general provision on its own cannot be relied on to meaningfully address chronic hazards to human health in consumer products. We feel the legislation should include explicit provisions to prohibit priority categories of toxic substances in consumer products and require product labelling to provide consumers with usable information about chronic health effects to the extent that these substances remain in products.

We therefore encourage the committee to entertain two amendments to Bill C-6.

First, include a legislative mandate for the Minister of Health to phase out the use in consumer products of substances that are carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction, and assessed as toxic to human health under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. Such an amendment should direct the minister to establish a schedule of priority chronic health hazards, drawing from International Agency for Research on Cancer classifications, California's Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are toxic to reproduction, schedule 1 of CEPA, and other authoritative assessments. This provision should include a clear timeline—we recommend implementation within two years—and allow reasonable exemptions for essential uses where safer substitutes are not available.

I would like to address the issue of detection thresholds, which was raised in earlier sessions of your study of Bill C-6. This type of amendment should aim to prohibit the intentional addition of substances that are carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction, and the compliance threshold should be established accordingly. This acknowledges that some background levels of contamination may nevertheless be present, but also takes into account that there is no safe level of many of these substances.

The second amendment we suggest complements the first, and it would require labelling to identify substances that are carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction, or health toxic under CEPA, to the extent that these substances do remain in consumer products. Again, this provision should include a clear legislative timeline and should apply to all products within the scope of this bill.

Labelling will allow consumers to make their own choices about what hazards to accept or avoid in consumer products. It will also help policy makers gather better information about chronic health risks in consumer products. We believe, as well, it will promote market innovation to substitute inherently safer alternatives in response to consumer demand.

I think most of us would agree that internationally recognized carcinogens and substances that are toxic to reproduction should not be used in consumer products if safer substitutes are available.

This is what the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act should be about, and it would be quite straightforward to add to the bill explicit provisions to this end, as I have suggested.

Strengthening the bill in this way would also help to bring Canada's product safety regime up to date with initiatives in leading jurisdictions to protect against chronic health hazards. In California, for instance, legislation dating back to 1986 requires businesses to notify the public when chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive problems are included in consumer products, and you've already seen an example of that being implemented. Last year the European Union legislated implementation timelines for hazard labelling as well, and the EU is also phasing in notification requirements and restrictions on substances of very high concern beginning this year. These measures are designed not only to protect public health and safety but also to stimulate innovation in the development and production of safer alternatives in consumer products. This is the approach that Canada should adopt in Bill C-6 as well.

Before I conclude, I'd like to touch briefly upon two other issues.

First of all, the incident reporting and product recall provisions in the bill make no requirement for public disclosure. We recommend that the legislation be amended to require the minister to notify the public of reported incidents and recall orders, including information about health hazards.

Second, we also recommend that the authority to exempt exports in paragraph 36(1)(a) be removed from the legislation. It is not morally defensible for Canada to export health and safety hazards that we prohibit or restrict domestically.

Thank you again for this opportunity to present our views. I'll be happy to respond to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. David Skinner, from Consumer Health Products Canada.

[David Skinner, President, Consumer Health Products Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the consumer health products industry on Bill C-6. My name is David Skinner, and I'm president of Consumer Health Products Canada, formerly known as NDMAC.

Consumer Health Products Canada is the national industry association representing manufacturers, marketers, and distributors of consumer health products. The association’s members, who range from small businesses to large corporations, account for the vast majority of sales in Canada’s $4.7-billion market for these products. Our members’ sales are equally proportioned between natural health products and other consumer health products, including sunscreens, allergy medicines, upset stomach remedies, and so forth. Our association has been the leading advocate for consumer health products for over 110 years.

Bill C-6, the Canada consumer product safety act, is, along with expected amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, a key legislative component of the government’s food and consumer safety action plan. Consumer health products are exempt from Bill C-6 by virtue of falling under the current Food and Drugs Act definition of “drug”. Nevertheless, we have identified two issues with respect to Bill C-6 that relate to consumer health products within the broader consumer safety action plan.

The first of these issues is the need to ensure that the intent to exempt those products regulated under the Food and Drugs Act is indeed carried out effectively. The second relates to the release of confidential business information to third parties, a provision found in both Bill C-6 and in the former Bill C-51 the Food and Drugs Act amendments that were introduced in the last Parliament and that died on the order paper when the 39th Parliament was dissolved.

The stated intention of the government is to exempt all therapeutic products, including consumer health products, from the provisions of this particular bill. This is to be accomplished by referencing the current definition of “drug” in the Food and Drugs Act. However, there has been much confusion around the need to specify a number of consumer health products to ensure they are adequately excluded through Schedule 1 to Bill C-6. The minister has indicated that an amendment to clarify the scope of the act will be proposed.

A concern has been expressed that if specific subcategories of products broadly defined in Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act are not set out specifically, they may be subject to the provisions of Bill C-6 in addition to the Food and Drugs Act. It stands to reason, however, that if one subcategory of natural health product is to be specifically identified as exempt, then all subcategories of products captured by Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act must be set out in Schedule 1 to Bill C-6. Classes of product that must be recognized in addition to NHPs would include personal care products—for example, antiperspirants—and other consumer health products such as sunscreens.

A further concern that we have identified is that while Schedule 1 identifies substances that would be exempt from the provisions of the bill, it is unclear whether this exemption would extend to other elements of the products regulated under the Food and Drugs Act, specifically their packaging and labelling. Discussions with departmental officials thus far have not been able to rule out the possibility that any subcategory of product could wind up being subject to both pieces of legislation in this way. In addition to the complexities and the unwarranted burden of being subject to two pieces of legislation, this possibly also creates the potential for situations in which the two regimes could come into conflict with each other.

Regulations and guidance documents under the Food and Drugs Act set out many specific requirements for the packaging of consumer health products, including child-resistant packaging, tamper-evident packaging, packaging material specifications, dose delivery mechanisms—for example, metered inhalers—and, of course, labelling.

We recognize that an attempt to list all possible classes of product could fail to cover all potentially relevant products. Since new classes of products arise from time to time under the Food and Drugs Act—for example, nutraceuticals—the list could be out of date rather quickly. To ensure that Bill C-6 clearly exempts products regulated under the Food and Drugs Act and to provide for flexibility so that every time a new class is added under the Food and Drugs Act there is no need for consequential amendments to Bill C-6, we recommend that schedule 1 be amended to delete articles 2 to 5 and replace them with a broad exemption for all products regulated within the scope of the Food and Drugs Act.

Our second key concern relates to the confidential business information provisions. The consumer health products industry understands the need, in rare emergency circumstances, for Health Canada to be able to release confidential business information to foreign regulatory authorities and other third parties to mitigate against potential serious and imminent public health risks. However, given the extent of vital proprietary information shared with Health Canada, industry believes that Health Canada must also notify the proprietor of the confidential information at the time such information is disclosed. Since consent to disclose is not required in the circumstances laid out in the act, timely notification would not in any way impact the government's ability to act or to act in a timely manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our industry's perspective on this important legislative proposal. My colleague and I look forward to answering questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We thank you as a committee for your insightful comments, and we look forward to the opportunity to ask you some questions.

We are going to go through our first seven-minute round. That's seven minutes per person for the question and the answer.

We will start with Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

I have a question for anyone who has information about this. Ms. Cooper, you mentioned Mr. Schwarcz's testimony the other day. He made a comment that there are 80,000 human-made compounds that have been introduced into products we use in society and that the body processes those compounds the same way it processes natural compounds.

I wonder if anybody is aware of research or evidence to support that or to contradict that assertion.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Go ahead, Ms. Cooper.

[Kathleen Cooper]

Sure, the body processes things that come into it through the digestive system and the respiratory system, and so on. But it's the nature of those chemicals coming in that are a problem as well as the fact that many of them the body has never seen before. It has never had to develop mechanisms for either breaking down persistent chemicals or for dealing with the toxic results of, say, breakdown products and so on. So sure, the body will process what comes into it, but the effects that result are what we're concerned about.

I just found that to be a bizarre statement he made. It's not useful information in terms of the concerns that exist for some of the more toxic components, especially synthetic chemicals. But of course there is lots of toxicity associated with naturally occurring substances, such as lead or mercury.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Gue.

[Lisa Gue]

If I can just add to that as well, it makes sense within the scope of this discussion to address toxic substances in consumer products, and that's where we've really centred our discussion. That's not to suggest that there aren't concerns about toxic substances from other sources as well. But for the purposes of this bill, our interest is in those substances that appear in consumer products.

None of us would suggest that it's perhaps possible or a worthwhile use of resources to attempt to eliminate every single hazard. But there is an opportunity in this bill to eliminate unnecessary hazards that enter our homes and our workplaces and our schools through consumer products.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I appreciate everybody's time and effort to come and give testimony here to help us kind of wind our way through the complexities of this issue. When I heard that, it just didn't compute for me that the body would know what to do with an artificially created molecule in the same way it would be used to for natural products. That would lead to the concern about chronic toxicity.

Ms. Cooper, you made a comment that the general prohibition doesn't work when it comes to protecting consumers from the potential for chronic toxicity. What kind of amendment or what kind of wording would address that, since it was pointed out that it is in the stated purpose of the bill?

[Kathleen Cooper]

Well, to go back to your previous question, the other thing I mentioned in my remarks is that we should focus our attention on what matters most in terms of children, or what the evidence tells us matters most, and that's air pollution and pesticides. When you protect children, you protect everyone else, generally. There's air pollution, pesticides, and consumer products. There's a lot to choose from here. We've done a lot of research saying that's where we need to focus our attention.

But then regarding the general prohibition, it's a very welcome addition to the Hazardous Products Act. But as Lisa mentioned, there's not enough specificity there in terms of how it's going to be useful for situations of chronic toxicity. If you're talking about something that is going to contribute to learning and developmental disabilities, or the latency period for cancer, our ability to know that and to have the evidence to say that certain products are associated with those kinds of long-term health outcomes is going to be very reactive. You're not going to know about health outcomes that could happen five, ten, twenty, or thirty years later and then be able to associate them back to a specific product. There's a real conundrum there.

So that's why we are trying to suggest complementing this notion of a general prohibition with the recommendations Lisa mentioned, so that we go after the chemicals we know now are a problem, saying, first and foremost, let us know about them, and also, phase them out. A further step in the vision and strategy document, First Steps in Lifelong Health, is to require that they be substituted with safer alternatives, as Sweden is doing.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So the ones that should be banned outright, in your organization's view, are the same ones that Mr. McBane was listing—lead, mercury, phthalates, and PBDE?

[Kathleen Cooper]

That's our shortlist.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay, and what's—

[Kathleen Cooper]

In the vision and strategy document, First Steps in Lifelong Health , that's a recommendation we made for immediate action--that is, a ban on non-essential uses of lead and mercury in consumer products, the banning of phthalates in children's products, and the banning of all flame retardants.

We would definitely support the broader lists Lisa mentioned for a more comprehensive approach. That's why I mentioned at the end of my remarks that I just wanted to support what she said. We tried to be complementary, given our limited time to present.

So yes, I would support exactly what Lisa said and the way she recommended using the IARC list, schedule 1 of CEPA, and on developmental reproductive toxins using the wisdom and experience that California has developed, for example.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Ms. Murray.

Now we'll go on to Monsieur Dufour.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks very much to our witness for taking the time to come here today.

First of all, Ms. Cooper and Ms. Gue, I would like to tell you that several of the proposals you made are already in effect in Quebec, in the Environmental Quality Act and the Pesticides Act. So, we can see that Quebec is already moving towards much more fair and equitable legislation. We encourage the federal government to follow the path that Quebec has already chosen. I will come back to that a little later.

Mr. Skinner, you told us something interesting just now about the publication of confidential information. This is extremely important, I feel, because we have to make sure that consumers are protected. That is vital, but there also must be a kind of guideline so that companies are not unfairly penalized. I feel that we need to achieve a balance there.

You are not alone in making that proposal to us. Jeff Hurst, the president of the Canadian Toy Association, wanted some amendments too. For example, before the department decides to publish confidential documents unilaterally, it should at least take the time to communicate with a company so that the company has time to get itself organized, to determine the damage, to try to come to an arrangement, or especially to order a voluntary recall, or perhaps to decide on a course of action with the department.

Ms. Reed, from Option consommateurs, also recognized that companies must not be penalized. She mentioned something extremely interesting in Europe, where they have a website on which manufacturers—she was talking about toys, but she explained that it could apply to many other areas—could post information about the composition of their toys without getting into confidential information. It is done without necessarily listing the companies they do business with, or whatever. But it would be good to have a list of the components that go into the manufacture of toys. Mr. Hurst, from the Canadian Toy Association, seemed receptive to that.

I am going to ask you another question at the same time. Could you tell me if you were consulted about Bill C-6? Also, how could we ask the department to make sure that its position is fair and equitable for all, and to examine the idea of a web site with Option consommateurs?

[Gerry Harrington, Director, Public Affairs, Consumer Health Products Canada]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Dufour.

Allow me to answer in English.

The question of the release of confidential business information is a key one for an industry that is proprietary information-based, such as the consumer health products industry.

We are in a bit of an awkward spot before this committee, however, because we don't anticipate that the provisions contained in this bill will apply to our industry. We expect that the discussion will be unique to health products, once the anticipated amendments to the Food and Drugs Act come along.

Certainly we recognize that there is a public health need at times that will require proprietary information to be released; we don't contest that. We also understand that there will not be a requirement for consent from industry when that information, as an issue of public safety, needs to be released. However, we have a broader concern around the issue of notification, so that manufacturers are in a position to at least deal with the consequences of their information going into, at some level or other, the public domain. It may require business decisions that are very important, when proprietary information is one of the key assets that these companies hold.

In the broader sense of your questions, I expect that the dialogue, when we get to the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, will be a very detailed one. But in terms of the issues around Bill C-6 they could be different. I think the health products industry has some unique dimensions to it, around intellectual property protection and so forth, that make up how products are approved so that Health Canada is in the possession of key proprietary information, which may not be the case with other consumer products.

In that sense, I'm afraid there are limits to the input we can offer the committee.