Health Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Suppa, would you like to address some of those concerns?

[Ralph Suppa]

When we opened our remarks, we opened them with general support of the principles of the bill. If we need to fine-tune down the road--and there's not going to be the opportunity to do so today--and if the labelling is the issue, let's look at what currently exists and see how we can enhance that protocol. We're here saying yes, let's work with you to find what the proper protocol is.

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

What I just did was list five areas that are really not part of this bill. They are part of a precautionary principle. I'm asking whether you disagree with any of those things, and if you don't, then you're going to agree with our trying to find ways to amend the bill so it will cover those issues and so that we will have a truly precautionary approach when it comes to consumer products.

[Ralph Suppa]

I'd have to go through the bill again before I could make a statement to that.

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

All right. Does anybody else want to answer?

Let me come back to Corinne. I can't believe that you couldn't answer the question about whether you would choose a box that says “there is lead in these lights” or not. I would say to you that there are many people out there who are quite aware of contaminants and are worried about what's going to happen to their kids and worried about health and well-being. They are going to look for advice. They are smart enough to figure it out, and I think our job as government is to provide them with the information to make those choices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but Ms. Pohlmann has only a very few seconds to answer that question.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Fundamentally, what you're saying nobody here would disagree with. However, it needs to be balanced with what industry is capable of delivering and what else is already out there to make sure that we are not duplicating efforts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much.

We'll now go to Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One of the contentious issues we're dealing with is this whole issue of labelling. We had the David Suzuki organization in and I asked if they had any evidence that Californians are more healthy since Proposition 65. It has been going on since the 1980s, and I wasn't able to get a clear answer there. Do you guys have any information?

What we're trying to do is make a law that everybody here is going to agree on. We want Canadians to be healthy and well informed, but we have an experiment in the States that has been going on for 25 years. Do we have any data that you guys are aware of, one way or the other? I noticed Mr. Suppa.

[Ralph Suppa]

I don't.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Anybody else? Nothing?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. King.

[Andrew King]

The challenge you pose is that it's hard enough getting the resources, as has been raised in this committee, to enforce the legislation in the first place. To then get the money for surveillance to ensure you can actually draw some connection between the two is even more difficult, especially since there are a number of other exposures that contribute. So actually attributing it is a huge challenge, not that we shouldn't be trying to do it. I note that for the first time in history Canada is beginning to develop an environmental and occupational exposure surveillance, and we've been having this problem for much longer. So I think that's part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is that consumer protection is more of a rights-based approach driven by concern for health but feeding into the rights of people to make a decision, which is fundamental to a free market economy.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I agree with that, but what I was trying to establish was that it has been going on for 25 years, so I wondered if we had any hard data. I do appreciate the input there.

I'm struggling with this idea of cumulative risk and chronic exposure. Could you give us any comments on the idea of cumulative risk?

We've had people come in and say they can define these toxic substances down to a nanoparticle, which is extremely small. There could be an exposure to pens or to ink, if I stick a pen in my mouth or draw on my hands. Could you give us an idea on maybe dose versus risk and what you think about that comment? Does anybody have a comment on that?

[Keith Mussar]

Thank you very much. That's a great question.

The whole principle behind the chemical management plan and CEPA and the evaluation that's actively going on and has been going on for a number of years already is to look at both acute risk and, where we have scientific information, chronic risk. We're currently doing that. I'm not going to preclude that it's an easy thing to do. I think others that have testified today have also said that assessing chronic risk is a difficult thing to do. But within the context of the science that's out there, that is currently what Environment Canada and Health Canada are doing to the best of their ability.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

So basically CEPA—what's there right now—is already doing a lot of that work or attempting to do some of that work. We did hear earlier that it's very difficult to figure this one out, because what are you talking about when you're talking about chronic exposure or cumulative exposure? Is it the same chemical over and over again, or a mixture of a bunch of chemicals? It is, I can see, a very difficult scientific fact. If you're going to mandate this, then who pays for it? Do we have industry pay for it? Do we have any ideas on the cost with that? Does CFIB have any idea of what the cost to members would be if you implemented something like that?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

No, I'm sorry.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

In your data, you were saying, though, the smaller the business, the more expensive it is usually.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Correct. We looked at regulations in general, and this has been validated by the OECD as well. The smaller the company, the higher the cost to comply with regulations.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Do we have definitions in Canada about how we define “toxic” and all these different levels?

[Keith Mussar]

There is a definition for toxic in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It really has two principles to it. First of all, is it toxic to our environment? Secondly, and what's really germane to our discussion today, is it toxic to human health?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

What's the difference, though? We heard about these foams or formaldehydes, or something.

[Keith Mussar]

Let me give you an example.

Road salt has been identified as and deemed to be CEPA toxic. As a result, it has been designated to be put on schedule 1. One of the things you look at is the condition under which road salt can be used. Under CEPA, there is an environmental component and there is a human health component. Certainly when you get road salt close to a freshwater environment and make it saline, that is going to be injurious to the freshwater environment and those animals occupying it, where it may not be injurious to human health. So what we have in the opportunity around the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the risk assessment that is founded in regulation is that it puts in place, with the knowledge from science of where it is a risk, management strategies that industry is obligated to adhere to in order to minimize the risk that it will get put into, in this case, a freshwater environment.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Are those already in the chemical management programs?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Carrie, I'm sorry, but Mr. King has been trying to put in a couple of words here.

Mr. King, would you like to just wrap it up?