Health Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Keith Mussar]

Thank you very much.

I have just two comments. First of all, from discussions we've had with officials within both Health Canada and Environment Canada, as I alluded to earlier, I know that mandatory labeling is an option that's already available to regulators if they believe that product labeling is an effective risk management option. They already have that authority.

Second, just to comment on Proposition 65, we've heard a lot of discussion about that. We've heard concerns about the fact that perhaps some the labeling may be meaningless. There are examples in California of fishing poles being labelled as containing toxins. Even parking garages in California are labeled.

I think there are some questions as to whether.... Certainly I would ask the question: If California had had available to them what we have in terms of CEPA 99, would they have gone to Proposition 65? I don't know.

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

Mr. Therien, do you have any comments?

[Emile Therien]

No, I don't. This is interesting, though.

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

Mr. Fruitman.

[Mel Fruitman]

I think that perhaps this issue of labeling has been very much overstated--the requirement for over and above what already exists--as Mr. Mussar has pointed out. The concern about carcinogenic products and other things that are hazardous to our health are covered under the general prohibition. Once it is known that these products do exist or might contain them, products can be banned, taken off the shelves, or whatever.

I think we need to consider labeling in the case of issues that are well known to the public and on which the jury is basically out on whether the item or product or component is or is not harmful. I'm thinking, in particular, of genetically modified foods, a topic I have been involved with. There are many people who believe that GM foods are harmful. There's a lot of other evidence on the other side that it isn't. Nobody really knows for sure. That is a situation in which consumers will very definitely benefit from a label that says that this product is or is not genetically modified, which would give them the information so they can choose what side they want to err on. That's where it is useful.

I think we could run into a situation in which we have too much labeling or we have labeling that's put on by suppliers as a preventative rather than as a necessity. It would be like having a “dry clean only” label when a garment can be washed. Dry cleaning gives them the safety net. It can go overboard and have an undesired result.

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

How's my time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You have another minute or so.

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

I guess you gave us, Ms. Pohlmann, some numbers in terms of the people you represent. How many of those businesses do you think would be impacted by labeling provisions?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

We have 13,000 manufacturing firms in Canada. These are Canadian-grown and Canadian-operated companies. I suspect that they would come under the provisions of that type of thing. That's just our membership. There's a much larger population. That's maybe 10% of the manufacturing population right now.

A large number of companies across Canada would come under these provisions, and it would not necessarily be easy for them to implement them overnight.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Ms. McLeod.

Now we're going to go into round two, which is five minutes for questions and answers.

There's tea and coffee and desserts at the back. If you'd like to help yourselves, that would be just fine.

We'll start with Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's lovely to have you here. I apologize for missing some of your testimony.

I'd like to read you a statement, and I'll ask if there's any disagreement with it. “Well-known toxic chemicals should be phased out of consumer products, particularly children's products, unless there is no viable alternative available.“ Is there any disagreement there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Maybe we should start with Mr. King.

[Andrew King]

None at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Fruitman.

[Mel Fruitman]

No disagreement, and I think it's allowed for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Mussar.

[Keith Mussar]

I think it's already allowed for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Suppa.

[Ralph Suppa]

Agreed and already allowed for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Therien.

[Emile Therien]

It's the alternative we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay, great.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'll do the same with another statement, if I may. “Consumers should have a right to know if there are toxic chemicals in the products they buy on the shelves.“ Is there any disagreement with that statement?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Fruitman first, then Ms. Pohlmann.