Health Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Kathleen Cooper]

Yes, we have met with departmental officials. It's been pretty last-minute, but that has been due to scheduling problems. Yes, there has been satisfactory consultation.

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

That's good.

Can you talk to me a bit about the new powers of recall and your status on those?

[Kathleen Cooper]

It's about time. Absolutely, we need it. We have needed it for a long time, and it's one of the best things in this bill.

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

Can you just elaborate a little more on how this is going to result in safer consumer use?

[Kathleen Cooper]

It's just common sense that if something is unsafe the government should have the power to get it off the shelves. But we have not had that power under the Hazardous Products Act. That is one of the things we've been trying to get done for almost ten years.

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

Can you talk about other improvements to consumer product safety that are going to result from Bill C-6?

[Kathleen Cooper]

Sure. There will be a more streamlined process for fines.

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

Are the fines adequate?

[Kathleen Cooper]

I haven't focused on that enough to give you a researched response, but I think so.

There is a whole range of reactive measures that are excellent such as greater powers to inspectors. You've heard it from the department, and we definitely support those essentially reactive things. What we're trying to get is a more proactive set of measures to prevent exposure to substances associated with chronic toxicity.

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

You read out a label when you first started your presentation, which was very succinct and told a lot in a concise way. From the testimony we've heard, we know there are naturally occurring toxic substances, hazardous substances, and under a mandatory labelling scheme we'd have labels on practically everything. Is there a danger that the mandatory labelling would cause labelling fatigue? Would people not worry about it as much as they should and start taking it for granted? Is there a way around that?

[Kathleen Cooper]

Lead is a good example. Lead is everywhere, and we can measure it down to very low levels. There are a lot of things you can't label as lead-free, but you can label when there has been an intentional addition of lead. First of all, there should be no intentional addition of lead, and usually the levels in regulatory limits, 90 parts per million, are set to make sure that this is the case. Generally, if someone is going to make a product that is going to use lead, it's going to be a lot higher than 90 parts per million. If it were an intentional addition of lead, such as in electrical wires, then it is appropriate to have a label, since if you are handling electrical wire, lead is going to come off on your hands.

As for labelling fatigue, it is one of the criticisms of Proposition 65, and we can learn to do better. There have been three different members of the committee since the last peer review of Proposition 65. I brought a report that includes some of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Perhaps you could submit that to the clerk, and then the clerk could distribute it to the committee.

[Kathleen Cooper]

Sure.

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

Are you saying that naturally occurring substances wouldn't necessarily fall under the labelling, it would be those that are added to it? Is that what I heard you say?

[Kathleen Cooper]

Yes. If a manufacturer has chosen to use lead, to stay with that example, and added it to make the colour happen or the fire resistance in the cords, or whatever, then yes, it should be labelled. Otherwise, if they haven't intentionally added it, then no, I don't think it needs to be labelled.

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

Okay. Would that then negate the concern about the very minute detections that are found naturally?

[Kathleen Cooper]

I think it would, yes.

If you go back 20 years, when we still had leaded and unleaded gasoline, there was a regulatory level for the allowable level of lead in leaded gas. There was a regulatory level, a very low one, for the allowable level of lead in unleaded gas. It was a recognition of environmental contamination. You measure the unleaded gas and see if there's any lead in it. If it's very low, below that level, you know it's fine. If it's above, then the red flag is up and you want to investigate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Ms. Cooper.

We'll now go into our second round. The second round is going to be five minutes for questions and answers.

We'll begin with Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to everybody for coming.

I strongly believe we have a real opportunity here to protect our children, who are the adults of tomorrow. I know it is stated in the beginning of the bill that precautions should be the focus. Canadians deserve to know what's in their products and then they can choose the level of risk. We also know these chemicals bioaccumulate in our bodies. We know we have aldrin, toluene, and the list goes on. I think we all intuitively know that carcinogens and neurotoxins are bad for our health.

I would like us to take a true precautionary approach and not do what we've done in the past. For example, there were 7,000 peer-reviewed articles that said tobacco was bad for our health before we did anything. We learned last week that consumer product manufacturers are meeting proposition 65 in California and in Europe. Why do you think there is such resistance to providing the same standards for Canadians?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to answer that question? Ms. Cooper, again? Or would somebody else like to try that just to give Ms. Cooper a bit of a break?

Ms. Gue.

[Lisa Gue]

I can only speculate. I guess you've heard some answers to that from other members on previous panels.

All of you in government will be familiar with a bit of resistance to any change on the part of manufacturers. It is true that a labelling requirement, for example, is going to involve changing product designs. Phase-out requirements are going to involve, in some cases, changing product composition. We're actually quite confident in the innovative ability of manufacturers. We've seen them do it in other places, and we're confident that they could do it here too. It's an opportunity, like you said, to send a clear signal, to direct the market in a direction that does prevent unnecessary hazards.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

[Michael McBane]

I'm sure members of the committee know that if you want a truly precautionary approach, like you said, it will take a very serious intervention by Parliament, because the department is on a completely different highway. It would require strict directions from the Parliament of Canada to change gears. You might as well change gears, because Washington is going to change gears.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'd like to pick up on that comment.

If I could read a comment to all of you, I'd like to know if there's anyone who disagrees with it. It reads:

Well-known toxic chemicals should be phased out of consumer products, especially children's products, unless there is no alternative available.

Is there anyone who would disagree with that comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Go ahead, Dr. Duncan. I guess there's nobody here standing up.