Health Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much.

When we are dealing with information that is essential to prevent any kind of danger, the minister clearly must be able to communicate that information, that is for sure. It is extremely important.

And you must be given some time in which you can react, because it can cause irreparable harm to companies with virtually unblemished dependability and credibility. They can find themselves in that situation overnight by an unfortunate stroke of bad luck.

We agree on that.

[Gerry Harrington]

Yes.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Earlier, I was talking about the environment in Quebec. Ms. Cooper, I found it interesting that you repeated what Mr. Schwarcz told us last week.

His view of the matter was interesting all the same. He mentioned labelling in California, for example. I would not want to give the wrong impression, but he was saying that providing too much information—perhaps not providing too much information, but putting too many labels on a product—resulted in certain information having less impact. It gets to the point where people can begin to get lost in the fine print on the label and can no longer really find the important information about the dangers.

I tell you quite honestly that I am not against that, but I want to be the devil's advocate. Are you not afraid that, by pushing labelling too far, you get the opposite effect and consumers get lost in all the mass of information on some carcinogens?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, Monsieur Dufour, we're going to have to ask Ms Cooper just to briefly answer that—very briefly, please.

[Kathleen Cooper]

Let's try it. We have 20 years of experience in California, which we can learn from, not repeat the mistakes. I think three different members have asked for peer-reviewed literature on the implementation of Proposition 65. I brought some of it today. I can table it with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Ms. Hughes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you. I want to elaborate a little on the labelling part.

Mr. McBane, you talked about precaution-based and not risk-based legislation and about labelling support. I'm wondering about some of your comments with regard to the items being imported. All too often we see that the labelling is not similar to or up to the same level as in Canada. I'm trying to get some sense of your worries with respect to some of the imports that are coming in.

[Kathleen Cooper]

Can I use an example?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

As long as it doesn't tick or or blow up, you may use an example.

[Kathleen Cooper]

Tick or blow up? Gotcha.

I want to know what's in it. This is number 3 plastic, so it's phthalate-softened PVC plastic. It's a drink container. It was given out by the thousands at the fall fair in Lindsay, Ontario, last fall.

I have another one. This example is given out to children as a drink container for reuse. Again it's phthalate-softened PVC plastic. In my opinion, it would be very efficient to say “don't use phthalate-softened plastic for food and drink containers”, rather than, one product at a time, say “we'll have to assess and we'll get back to you; it will take us two or three years to do a regulation”. That's the process we have.

I'm straying. I shouldn't have done that. You asked about imports.

It's great that we're increasing the number of inspectors; we needed to do that. But how is something like this going to get caught? That's the concern I have.

I'm going to find out whether its red colour comes from lead. I'll get back to you on that. I know it has phthalates in it.

I don't want to be the heavy mom who, when the kids bring this stuff back, may look at the bottom of it and say don't use that. I don't want this sort of thing to be happening in the first place, and I think it happens all too easily.

This is just one example. It's cheap, imported, junky stuff that I think too easily gets through the kinds of screens, even with more inspectors, that, if we had more efficient ways of saying “just don't use that in food and drink containers”—in the same way that we are saying “don't use bisphenol A in any food and drink containers”, not just the baby bottle thing, because we have enough evidence to say don't do that....

I don't know whether I'm being clear there, but I'm trying to get at the notion of being more efficient and just saying categorically, in certain ways, especially when it's food and drink and it's directed to kids, “don't use it”—categories, rather than one product at a time, one substance at a time. It gets at that notion of the volume of things that are coming in, in so many ways—usually as imports.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Does someone else have a comment on that?

Go ahead, Ms. Gue.

[Lisa Gue]

Yes, I'd like to comment briefly.

When you raise the issue of the globalized production chain for many of the products coming into Canada, another consideration is that as other jurisdictions are moving forward to prohibit certain priority categories of toxic substances in consumer goods, we don't want Canada to become the dumping ground for products that can no longer be sold elsewhere, such as in Europe, and when we know that manufacturers are complying with labelling requirements and phase-out requirements elsewhere, it raises the question of why similar protections couldn't be in place in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Go ahead, Mr. McBane.

[Michael McBane]

I will briefly add that the assistant deputy minister said, “The targeted oversight is intended to provide us with the information we need to then take an appropriate response relative to the risk that we see”. Do you see some holes here, in “targeted”, “relative”, or “the risk we perceive”?

Meanwhile all this is coming in. What we need is a proactive approach. We need regulation, old-school regulation, that prohibits these toxins in the first place. We should not be handing them over to the so-called risk managers, which is a mug's game when you're dealing with children's health. That's the difference between a precautionary system and a risk management system.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

That basically leads us to the idea that the legislation should also include a duty for the government to act. We're seeing a lot of imports coming in; from what I can gather from you, you're saying that it's been very difficult to actually monitor what is coming in, and that we need stricter rules with respect to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Go ahead, Ms. Cooper.

[Kathleen Cooper]

I use that example also to come up with efficient ways too, so that across the board you don't have to second-guess at this sort of thing: it's not allowed. It fits with what Lisa was presenting; you just don't use certain things in certain ways, with fair exemptions essentially used in all of those other things.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

You also talked about the second-hand stuff, and of course a lot of people certainly can't afford to buy the brand new items. Then they end up in second-hand stores as well. I would like to hear some of your views on how to deal with the second-hand issues.

[Kathleen Cooper]

That's really important, especially for low-income people, but also for everyone in general. Health Canada puts out some good advisory information about being careful at garage sales and yard sales. They could be more comprehensive, I think. The labelling recommendations we've made don't really help there, but that's why the public education part of it is so important.

I've brought a piece of old foam. If you're using old furniture and you're low-income and you've got exposed foam sticking out of, say, an old couch, up to 30% by weight of that foam will be brominated flame retardants. Those are now banned. We should ban them all, but I'm talking about the ones that are now banned.

You know the way foam will discolour when it's exposed to light. It will break down. It ends up in the house dust, and then children are exposed to it. There are several steps of information there, but it's part of the educational work we are doing that empowers people to know about second-hand products.

Sorry; that was too much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Ms. Cooper. That's okay; thank you very much.

We'll now go to Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank each of our presenters today. We have certainly been getting very good information from you.

Ms. Cooper, I just wanted to say that I know you've done a lot of work advocating on the different aspects of product safety. I think you've done some great work in your focus on toxic chemicals and the different items you've brought here today. I know you've been actively involved in these kinds of things.

We had another bill before Bill C-6, and I know that you gave feedback on that other bill. Have you given other feedback on Bill C-6 prior to today, or are your comments much the same as when you talked about mandatory labelling and expanded testing requirements and those types of things in commenting on the prior bill that did not get passed?

[Kathleen Cooper]

Are you talking about Bill C-52 last year?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes.

[Kathleen Cooper]

It didn't actually get to committee stage. We did a response during the consultation, yes.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Did you?

What about your consultation on Bill C-6? Have you been actively involved with consultation on this bill?