Health Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I'd like to ask a second question, and I'll put it out to all of you as well.

Is there anyone who would disagree that the Minister of Health should establish a list of hazardous substances? That's trickier. I'm going to put it that way and then I'll go through the ways that perhaps this could be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to take that question?

Mr. Harrington, then Ms. Cooper.

[Gerry Harrington]

From the operative position of an industry regulated under the Food and Drugs Act and that is intended to be exempt from this bill, allow me to just provide an example from our world.

Under the Food and Drugs Act, all products are assumed to have risks attached to them. If there is any therapeutic benefit, there is a risk attached. The math really comes down to managing and ensuring that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that the products are used and labeled and regulated in such a way that the risks are minimized and the benefits are maximized. How that applies to non-health products in the consumer product domain is obviously a trickier matter. That's because under the Food and Drugs Act, we are not just regulating the safety of the product; we're also regulating the efficacy, what they offer, what benefit they give.

I don't know how that fits under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, which doesn't evaluate efficacy. It's a difficult question for us to answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, Mr. Harrington, and my apologies to Ms. Cooper. Your time's up.

I'm going to have to go to Ms. McLeod.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think again what we are hearing from the witnesses is that this bill indeed does create many positive moves in the right direction. There are just perhaps some thoughts, which vary from witness to witness, in terms of what areas might be tweaked to make it a better bill for all Canadians.

I have perhaps an unusual question, but I was piqued by the flame retardant comment by Ms. Cooper, that we should ban them all. Children's clothing has mechanisms to be flame resistant. I was just curious on that issue.

[Kathleen Cooper]

I did not mean all flame retardants. I meant specifically the polybrominated diphenyl ethers, the PBDEs. We've declared all of them to be toxic. There's no way I would say get rid of fire safety for children's clothing. In fact the way fire safety for children's clothing is accomplished is in the design and the type of fabric. They're not treated with chemicals the way they used to be twenty years ago.

I totally agree with you. We want to make sure we have good fire safety provisions.

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

Thank you. I think I perhaps misinterpreted the comment, but I think that was important to actually clarify, that we do need to continue to protect children.

I'm still struggling with this label issue. I think I've struggled with it all along. I think many of us are struggling with it. I certainly heard Dr. Schwarcz. His opinion was that if something is unsafe, whether it be sort of known to be cumulative over time, or we know it right now for acute exposure, it simply shouldn't be there. Is that not what he stated?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Cooper, would you like to comment on that?

[Kathleen Cooper]

Fair enough, except it's too simplified. For fire safety, lead is in electrical wires, and it's also a carcinogen and a reproductive toxin. That's why we're saying let us know, so we can wash our hands after we handle them. People are very surprised when I show them this label, because they're not even aware that with their Christmas lights and their computer cords and everything else, lead can come off on their hands.

It's agreed that we should be getting rid of toxic chemicals, carcinogens, because they shouldn't be in there. But we still use them. There are sometimes legitimate reasons to do so, and people want to know. They want to make choices, product choices. Labelling gives them that information.

We'd go further and say that they shouldn't be there, or if there are substitutes, you must substitute something else, the way Sweden has done. All this labelling does is give people information.

[Lisa Gue]

My comments are very much aligned with what Kathleen just said.

Labelling, on the one hand, can be an interim step that promotes transparency to pave the way for other policies in the future that will get those substances out of products. It's also an acknowledgement that there will inevitably be exemptions given for essential uses. The consumer should at least know about the hazards in order for them to take the appropriate steps.

I do note, as well, a bit of a danger of a circular argument here. We have a bill that in fact doesn't propose to prohibit chronic health hazards from consumer groups, and therefore can't see its way to labelling them, because we wouldn't want to admit that there are hazards still in goods. I think we need to take a more proactive approach and at least allow consumers to make that choice for themselves. That also acknowledges that some aspects of the population are more vulnerable than others, and may have a particular interest in protecting their health.

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

So with the thousands and thousands of compounds, and the science that is not clear on many substances, where do you go with it?

[Lisa Gue]

I think the acute warning system on products already provides a good example. When we see a product with an explosive sign, it's not a guarantee it's going to explode. Consumers know that. It's an indication of an inherent property associated with that substance or container, and the propensity for danger that implies.

It would just make sense, and I think we all know that consumers are interested in having the same kinds of indications about chronic health hazards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Monsieur Dufour.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I asked the people from Consumer Health Products Canada about the possibility of giving reasonable notice of 24 hours, or a day, to companies before confidential information on a product is published. I asked industry representatives the question, but I would like to know your opinion.

The minister informs companies, but should she give them 24 hours' notice so that they can prepare themselves?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to take that question from Monsieur Dufour?

Ms. Cooper.

[Kathleen Cooper]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it related to notice of inspections in advance, or are you talking about seeking information for testing of products?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

We are going to talk about inspection again in a few minutes. My question was more about the publication of a company's confidential information.

Let us suppose that inspectors uncover a problem in a company. Would it be a good idea to give that company 24 hours' notice so that it can investigate the problem from their end or send out their own information?

[Kathleen Cooper]

I don't feel qualified to answer that question. I can talk about whether or not inspectors should notify companies in advance that they're coming--I think that's ridiculous. That came up in the testimony before. But I don't feel qualified to answer the question, because I am not a manufacturer of products.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Is there anybody here who feels they are qualified to tackle that question?

Mr. McBane.

[Michael McBane]

We have other concerns about the business confidentiality section, which I think is the one you're talking about. It basically defines the right of a company to protect anything as proprietary that affects their bottom line. I don't think safety information is proprietary, period, whether it's drugs, medical devices, food, or any toxic chemicals.

This is an example of paradigms in conflict. Public health trumps business in communicable diseases, etc.. Public health trumps proprietary information. That's why I have a problem with the definition. It's too broad and won't let us get at safety information.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Skinner, do you want to add something?

[David Skinner]

That's why in our testimony we're suggesting it's not inappropriate to release the information, especially about intellectual property, as that confers certain property rights to the owner of the property. You should at least be able to tell them that you're releasing the information.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

We mentioned inspectors. In the listeriosis outbreak, there were not enough inspectors. Bill C-6 is all well and good, but what scares me is the severe shortage of inspectors. Mr. Burns, from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, shares my fear.

In this bill, should the government make it clear that there must be an adequate number of inspectors to do the inspections? It is all very well to pass a bill, but, if there is no one to oversee it, what have we gained?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to take that question? There are only about twenty seconds left.

Mr. Harrington.