Health Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Would anybody else like to add anything? You have a little more time.

Another minute, Ms. McLeod.

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

So you have to wonder with all the different requirements from the different levels of government if there was some way we could combine them all and make them easier for the business operators.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Absolutely. I think we're already noting here that there are lots of other regulations out there, even federally, with CEPA 1999 and the chemicals management plan, but also provincially. So we need to make sure that we're not duplicating efforts, that we're not asking them to do two things in different ways with really the same outcome. We would strongly encourage working with the provinces and others that have similar types of legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Therien.

[Emile Therien]

I could tell you there's a precedent in place in the advisory council on the transportation of dangerous goods.

Corinne mentioned the paper reduction. The members of that are the industrial chemicals businesses. It's incredible how they reduced it and how these members are so much happier today. So there is a precedent there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Fruitman, were you wanting to make a comment as well?

[Mel Fruitman]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Therien, and thank you, Ms. McLeod.

We will now go to Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I come from a small and medium business background, with 25 years as a business owner, and I'm very sympathetic to the presentation of the CFIB.

Were your organizations consulted in a meaningful way, as in your input was sought, you saw your input taken into account as Bill C-6 or Bill C-52 were being drafted?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Yes.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So then you presumably don't have too many concerns about the duplication with the provincial and other acts because you had a chance to give input on that already?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

It was certainly one of our comments in the letter that you'll see we sent to the minister back in April, and it continues to be. But that's where I lean on folks like Ralph, who are specific to industries that have those types of regulations in place. I bow to them to give me that feedback. But it's something that we try to push all levels of government to think about and make sure they understand they're not duplicating efforts from different levels.

[Ralph Suppa]

I can also echo that the consultation process with Health Canada, in my estimation, has been very transparent, meaningful, and productive. They listen to our concerns. You'll see nine recommendations in our submission that still need to be analyzed, and I hope when the committee does clause-by-clause they are referred to. I've gone through this process before, and they've been accessible to listen to our concerns.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'm going to ask another question of the small-business organization.

When I was part of a small business, one of the things we did was lobby the government for notification of pesticides on the seedlings. Our workers were handling tree seedlings, and there were concerns about the toxicity over time of exposure to those pesticides. As a company, we were not qualified to say whether they were toxic or harmful, but we felt that we and our employees had the right to know. It was a very long and hard-fought battle, but we did win the right to notification of pesticides.

I don't see any disconnect between small business and wanting to make sure the toxic chemicals that may have a chronic health impact or may be carcinogenic or hormone disrupters...that there's notification of those for people in the business handling the goods or for the consumers buying them.

I'm very interested in your answer, Ms. Pohlmann, about the concept of labelling responding to the concept that consumers should have a right to know if there are toxic chemicals in the products they buy and that are on the shelves.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Fundamentally, we agree in principle with this bill. And we do believe we need to do more to protect consumers when it comes to product safety. Whether labelling is the best way to do that is what I question. That's what I've been suggesting as we went through the process, and I think others here suggest the same. That's where it comes from. People have the right to know, and they can certainly get the information, if they need to, in certain ways.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

If I may ask, how else could they, given how this is written?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

For me, it's whether labelling is really going to get them to understand what the problems are with the product. I'm not going to talk about employees right now, because there's a whole other set of rules around employees. But when it comes to the consumer side of things, I question whether labelling is really the most effective means to help consumers with that particular issue.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

If you were buying a string of Christmas lights and you knew that lead was something that could build up and be very harmful to your health and one box was labelled “contains lead on the string” and another box was labelled “does not contain lead on the string”, would that be confusing? Or would that help you make a choice, in terms of the kind of risk you want to take when you're buying something?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

It's a tough question to answer. I'm not an expert on all these toxic chemicals, but I do believe that most Canadians probably are not even looking that closely at the packaging. I think there are other ways we can get that information out to them.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'd be interested in knowing how, because we're trying to create a bill that addresses that question, and a theoretical answer like that isn't really helpful in terms of the task.

If not with a label--so somebody would be able to know whether they wanted to handle lead, and if they did, how they would protect themselves--how else would that be in the bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Suppa, we're out of time, but if you'd like to quickly....

[Ralph Suppa]

Very quickly, I don't think that's an issue for the bill. Most legitimate retailers and distributors stock reputable products. And consumers know where those reputable products are stocked.

You can't put labels on everything. Sometimes you may be causing a false sense of security. And I think, as Keith mentioned, we've got laws in place. If they need to be enhanced, let's enhance them.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

That's what we're trying to do here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much, Mr. Suppa.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Gosh. Where do I start?

Let me start by just saying that I think we run into some problems in this country when we take this kind of hands-off approach. I think if you look at the listeriosis crisis right now and you ask Maple Leaf what they would like to see happen, they would say that they want tough government regulations with proper inspection staff and that they want to make sure that there is that independent oversight for all of their products.

That's all we're asking for with this bill. We're trying to make this bill truly precautionary. It starts off in the preamble saying do no harm. Other than the words “do no harm”, there is nothing in this bill that actually requires that products put on the market be safe beyond a reasonable doubt. We're trying to get there. How do you do that? You do that by having more than simply tough penalties with recalls, because by then the products have already caused death or illness or serious injury. Therefore, you have to turn to what the options are. The options are testing the products coming into this country, having spot audits, having surprise inspections, and having adequate inspection staff. When there are products that have been identified as containing serious carcinogens and causing problems to human health, such as lead or phthalates, you do something about it, like banning them. If you don't have that definitive evidence and you don't have a government that's willing to ban them, then you label them.

I would suggest to all of you that if you're looking at this as a parent and as a consumer, you're going to want to go into a store with the knowledge you've acquired and make a decision based on what is best for the health and well-being of your children. That's all we're asking for with this bill. Does anybody here disagree with testing of products coming into this country? Does anybody disagree with increasing inspection staff so we can do some on-spot audits and check for not the 85% of the retailers who might be doing good business with good ethics but those who don't? You know that there are those who don't do the best they can and who put unethical products on the market. That's why we have bills like this.

Does anybody here disagree with banning products that have been proven to be carcinogenic and dangerous when they build up over a period of time, like lead and phthalates and mercury? Does anybody here think that we shouldn't ensure in this bill that there be something that requires those products that are hot to be banned? Finally, if they're not and if we don't have the definitive science, does anybody disagree that we should have some form of labeling so that you as parents can help make a wise decision for the well-being of your children?