Evidence of meeting #23 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chemicals.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:35 p.m.
Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada
Unfortunately, that's a very simplistic statement.
6:35 p.m.
Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada
When that is stated, how do we...? There is all the other information that is required in the back of it. What is a toxic chemical? How does the consumer know about this? Does that information actually tell them anything, or does it only confuse them?
I can't agree with that statement by itself.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Okay, in that case, I'm going to reverse the order.
How do you feel about the minister publishing a list of known hazardous substances? I know that's a challenge. How do you decide what is a hazardous substance? So I'll go in order. Perhaps the IARC chemicals from groups 1, 2A, and 2B.
6:40 p.m.
Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada
Well, I'm a consumer, and I haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about. I think that's part of the problem right there. The minister could publish a list that may have hundreds of items on it. We cannot reasonably expect shoppers to walk into a store carrying that list with them.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Fruitman, I'm being very kind and generous with you. I would expect the same.
I believe that we would have it in common language. IARC is the cancer group. I'm wondering how you folks feel about that. They're carcinogens.
6:40 p.m.
President, Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, Consumer Product Safety Coalition
I'm not familiar with it. I think if you start talking about those kinds of issues, when you talk about labeling, you also take away from the real issue that consumers need to know—the warranties, the guidelines, and so on. We have to be careful when we go down this road.
I'm sorry, I can't respond intelligently. But we need to look at the real issue of what we think the label may do, but may not necessarily really do.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I think right now it's trying to... How would you feel about establishing a list of toxic chemicals?
6:40 p.m.
Chair, Food Committee, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, Consumer Product Safety Coalition
I think we've already done that. That's part of the requirement out of CEPA.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
So we agree with CEPA. What about other carcinogens or neurotoxins? Does the list need to be looked at again? After all, new chemicals come on line every few months.
6:40 p.m.
Chair, Food Committee, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, Consumer Product Safety Coalition
And that's the purpose of the new substance notification process that we have in Canada. The new substance notification process is actually a pre-market approval process. The substances that are evaluated through that are either allowed onto the market because they are safe, or a decision is taken that they are unsafe and therefore they are not allowed on the market, or they are allowed on the market within the context of very specific applications.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I think we would agree that over time we learn that some chemicals are not safe, and they're already on the market. That's why you need to review that chemical list, to make sure we get new chemicals on.
6:40 p.m.
Chair, Food Committee, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, Consumer Product Safety Coalition
Yes, and that is a provision under the CEPA 99. It's actually something that Environment Canada has started to have discussions about with industry.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
6:40 p.m.
Department Leader, Health, Safety and Environment, United Steelworkers
I wanted to encourage you in the direction you're going with your questions, because I think where you're coming from is that in consumer products legislation, shouldn't those products contain labels that provide people with the information there are toxic chemicals in them? What a toxic chemical is could be the subject of a debate—it could be CEPA or IARC, or whatever. That way, it provides more guarantees and makes it a little bit easier for people to accept.
But what you're fundamentally getting at is do consumers have the right to know these things are in the product they're buying? On that, I think we have to give a very strong yes, because that's what being a consumer is about, knowing that and making a decision.
June 2nd, 2009 / 6:40 p.m.
Past President, Canada Safety Council
I don't disagree with that, but I really think that Canadians—
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to interrupt.
Mr. Therien, if you could pay attention to the chair, I'm trying to be very fair. Thank you.
Now we go to Ms. Davidson.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks very much to all of our presenters here today. We've been getting some good information.
I just want to take the discussion back again to imports and labelling. Mr. Suppa, I think you talked about how in your line of business, different items might be CSA or ULC approved, and that the inspectors or authorities look for that certification before they approve those items for use in Canada. So is that required for many products, or is it for electrical products? Your business is heating, is it?
6:40 p.m.
President, Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, Consumer Product Safety Coalition
It affects electrical products—they are also a regulated industry—and plumbing and heating. When a home builder pulls out a permit to build a home, that's the signal that the inspector must inspect the home for the various certification marks that are third-party-certified.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Okay.
There's been discussion among different people here on requiring mandatory pre-testing. That suggestion has been made. How does that fit in with the testing and labelling that's already in place on the products you use? Are we talking about two different things, or are we talking about duplication?
6:45 p.m.
President, Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, Consumer Product Safety Coalition
In my industry, if you were asking for that, it would be a duplication of effort. It's already gone through the third-party certification process; it's gone through a stringent testing protocol; and before it can even go into the marketplace, it has to have that approval from that third-party certifier. So if you're asking if we would now have to duplicate something we already do with third-party certifiers with Health Canada, well, there's no benefit to the consumer, and you've added a cost to the manufacturer without any benefit to them.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Is the mandatory pre-testing of imports something that could be implemented for other products, such as toys? Then the onus is on the manufacturer to prove to the importer that it meets the requirements. I assume that's how your testing is done in your business. The person who manufactures that has to comply with the CSA guidelines.
6:45 p.m.
President, Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, Consumer Product Safety Coalition
Regarding toys, I would suggest you refer that to them for a response. I'm not competent to speak on their behalf.