Health Committee on June 4th, 2009

[Paul Glover]

Has it led to full bans of products? No, we would acknowledge that. It did lead, for example, through the assessment of BPA, to the action taken to say that BPA does not belong in baby bottles and to the move to do that very quickly.

There is an acknowledgement here that without the general prohibition in Bill C-6, we will always be required to move through the standard Canada Gazette part 1 and part 2 process and the time constraints around them. In the absence of Bill C-6 and the general prohibition, the department, through the Hazardous Products Act and CEPA, will always be required to do Gazette part 1 and Gazette part 2, and the consultation times.

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

Today in the House the minister announced that the government is moving on a complete ban, except for trace levels, of lead and phthalates, which was great. We fought for that for a long time and we're really pleased to see it happen.

My concern is that it happened because of a lot of pressure over many years, and I don't think there's anything in Bill C-6 that would force the government to take action on other products unless there was that kind of pressure or goodwill. Is that not the case, and isn't that what we're trying to do here--make sure there's something built into Bill C-6 that would require the government of the day, regardless of political stripe and regardless of political pressure and public outcry, to take action when the science is in?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Go ahead, Mr. Glover.

[Paul Glover]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With respect to the member's comments, I would respectfully suggest that Bill C-6 does create those incentives. It significantly changes the Hazardous Products Act. The penalties that we had were really not very significant, and the onus was on the government to prove that a product was hazardous and to go through all the steps to do that.

This new Bill C-6 creates a general prohibition. All industry must know the products that they make and how they will be used. If they're not good for the health of Canadians, they will break that general prohibition, and the government will be able to move, and move quickly, through a range of actions if they do not follow the instructions of departmental officials. Then we have significant penalties that we can impose on them.

We are quite significantly changing the rules of the game for industry, for importers, and for manufacturers through the general prohibition and the penalties to make sure they are acting responsibly and in the interests of the health and safety of Canadians.

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

I'm sorry; my question is really about how you get to the point of applying this act if there is something that should be prohibited, but it's not listed in the act. Yes, they're listed in other acts, but it doesn't always come together.

There's science in on a number of other things besides lead and phthalates and bisphenol A. There must be science in on mercury and cadmium and other products that have been demonstrated to be pretty serious in terms of children. What does it take, if it's not in the bill and it's not on a hot list? What does it take to move action in those areas, action other than your statements that you're working on it or that the government or the minister...?

[Robert Ianiro]

Perhaps I can help clarify this issue.

Schedule 2 lists prohibited items. We will continue to add substances to that list. In addition to those prohibitions and in addition to the regulations that exist, the general prohibition is always there as that safety net and catch-all to deal with the dangers and the hazards that you're talking about. That's the whole purpose of the general prohibition: to allow the government to take that timely action if and when there is a substance of concern that is posing a danger to human health and safety. That is how it is structured.

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

Here's an example. I could argue that a response on lead and phthalates would have been timely 10 years ago, but it took till now to get some action, so wouldn't it be better to have something in a bill like this that forces some movement on a timely basis?

Maybe a related question is this: what other products are you looking at right now that are in the category of being possibly dangerous, and you're looking to ban them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Go ahead, Mr. Glover.

[Paul Glover]

I have two comments.

As other members have said, one of the concerns about establishing lists is that the science is constantly evolving. Our interest is not in maintaining the list but in dealing with unsafe products, so rather than coming back and adding to lists and having to prove and establish thresholds, we will follow the science. If the science indicates that something is a problem, we'll say that it's breaking the general prohibition and begin to take the appropriate action as we move forward.

With respect to products we are concerned about, the department intends to use mandatory reporting to identify trends in problems through cyclical enforcement, which is our history in working with this, and not just deal with the substances. For example, we have issues at times with poorly designed baby cribs; it's not only the ingredients we are focused on in substances, but also how a product is put together. We go in and test those cribs to make sure they are safe for the young children, who often stand and jump up and down in them. We want to know if they will withstand those sorts of tests. We have cyclical enforcement strategies to go out and test a broad range of products as we move forward. An example is children's jewellery at the Christmas season. The department undertakes action over a broad range with respect to the inspection of products.

With respect to chemicals on that list, the list has been established through the chemicals management plan and is available on the chemicals management plan website. There are 4,000 that have been prioritized for assessment, and we are dealing with those very rapidly. The highest 500 priorities will be dealt with within two years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I just want you to keep in mind that we're at five o'clock now, and we're going to continue. The committee might go overtime tonight for a little while to get things done.

Go ahead, Ms. McLeod.

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

Madam Chair, this is about consumer product safety. It's about magnets in toys. It's about ladders that might fall down. It is about chemicals too, but we can't try to fix any gaps in CEPA through this piece of legislation. If there are issues in terms of CEPA, that's where it needs to be dealt with.

I would suggest that we call the question at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We have two more speakers, and then I'll call the question.

Dr. Bennett is next.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

The chemical product program has been going for a couple of years now, and I'm not sure there's been real regulation. I'm not sure that it has dealt with one toy in its time.

My concern is that when you're dealing with products for children, the science might tell you that a small amount on its own would be okay, but if there's also this, and also that, and also something else, it could be that two and two makes five or that there's a tilt in terms of the way those chemicals act together. Surely it has to be done product by product.

I'm having trouble, because if this is about resources, which we keep coming back to, then I think Canadians would want to spend their money to get rid of the backlogs, but we also want to have this extra tool to use if we find out that a combination of substances and chemicals coming together in a certain product may actually be a catalyst for more adverse effects.

[Paul Glover]

Madam Chair, the member raises an excellent point with respect to mixtures. The reality is that the science on that is evolving. Dealing with the potential number of mixtures with literally hundreds of thousands of chemicals is new and evolving science. The tools to do that are really just being developed.

When we spoke earlier about how the science is evolving, we completely agree. We are watching and evaluating that, but those tools are not yet fully developed or robust enough to deal with all the potential scenarios. It is new science that we acknowledge needs to be dealt with, and we are working with international partners to develop those tools to deal with the literally billions and trillions of potential combinations that are possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

How will CEPA deal with mixtures, and until that happens, wouldn't it be better to be able to do this product by product?

[Paul Glover]

Madam Chair, there is no jurisdiction that yet has the tool to deal with all the potential mixtures. We continue to assess individual substances. We can look at the cumulative exposures of that substance through all its potential uses, but when you look at mixtures in one product and another product and how they all come together, there is new science that is required to be able to do that. We think we're close to that, but we're not there yet—Canada or any other jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thanks.

I'm just going to make an observation, because I think when we talk about the chemical management plan we're talking about CEPA. But I think the government handles the environment differently. This is about the consumer products. I think we're getting off track here. My understanding is that the general prohibition allows you to keep exactly the problem the opposition brings up. It allows you to deal with the science quickly as you know more. You don't have to go through the other way. It moves incredibly fast because you have this general prohibition. As soon as you find out the danger, you can move. Is that right?

[Paul Glover]

As the science evolves, with the general prohibition, we will be able to move, and move quickly.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

And move a lot faster. Okay, well, I'm comfortable, Madam Chair, moving the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Yes. I am. Thank you.

Let's go to the question on proposed new clause 8.1.

(Amendment negatived)

We have to go back to clause 8.

There are no amendments to clause 8. New clause 8.1 is a totally new clause; we had to treat that differently. Let's go back to clause 8.

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(On clause 14—Definition of “incident”)

We have two amendments to clause 14. The first one is G-3 on page 6 of the package. That's a government one by Dr. Carrie.

Dr. Carrie, would you like to speak to that one?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Various groups raised concerns with respect to the incident reporting timelines proposed. This would allow industry participants to have adequate time to provide a written report for health or safety reasons.

What we're suggesting here is that Bill C-6, in clause 14, be amended by replacing line 45 on page 8 with the following:

within 10 days after the day on which

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Do we want some comments from the officials? Okay.

(Amendment agreed to)

We'll now go to Dr. Bennett's amendment.

Would you like to make a comment on that amendment, Doctor?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I think this just clarifies the timelines from the time the minister hears it, stating what is required in terms of the public notice, including how specific the public notice must be in terms of the nature of the effects that could happen from the incident, and also actually using the marketed names of the products, such that it's very clear to Canadians.