Thank you.
Ms. Murray.
Evidence of meeting #24 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #24 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm wondering how the bill differs significantly from CEPA. We're hearing a lot about duplicating its efforts, so how does it differ significantly?
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
CEPA is quite a large piece of legislation. I'm not sure I'm in a position to fully answer that question. When you take a look at CEPA as a stand-alone piece of legislation compared with the page and a quarter that has been provided here--the range of tools and the breadth that CEPA covers, all uses of a particular chemical--it is a significantly broader piece of legislation in terms of protecting the health of the environment and that on which life depends.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
It sounds like CEPA is broad legislation and this is narrow legislation. Does it fit within CEPA, and is there duplication of efforts?
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Yes, this would overlap with the assessments that are done under CEPA. It would create duplicate legislation.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
We would find that highly problematic, as industry, NGOs, and stakeholders would wonder which piece of legislation they're being held to report under, which legislation's penalties and fines we would be required to use and administer. We would probably find over time that they may lobby for one versus the other, given the level of protection that one would afford.
The other problem this would face is that under CEPA, when we do that assessment, we consider--and I know I'm repeating myself, and I apologize about time--
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
--all of the uses of that product, so whether it's used in a closed loop in a factory to make something, whether it ends up in a finished product, whether it's released out of a smoke stack; and we put, if appropriate, controls on all of those rather than only one.
One of the things we try to do under CEPA is look at the substance, and to dedicate management that looks at the full use of that substance rather than one slice, so we're not in effect squeezing a balloon and finding that it's popping out somewhere else. We want to deal with that substance, all of its uses through all of its industries, protect Canadians' health through all of the exposure pathways, to collapse that to protect the health and the environment.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I appreciate this. It really sounds like you're supporting CEPA. Would CEPA do everything we need? I think it's missing the product recalls, but have we duplicated our efforts here?
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
You have duplicated efforts, with respect, and when CEPA does that more integrated assessment and finds there is a problem, it can then hand off that assessment to other pieces of legislation, to say there is a product problem and action needs to be taken.
There was a question earlier about bisphenol A, BPA, where the assessment was done under the chemicals management plan, and the baby bottles were recalled under the Hazardous Products Act. So the two pieces of legislation, given that the assessment is integrated and done once, and can then drive to the most appropriate tool to manage that risk.
My colleague would like to make an additional point.
June 4th, 2009 / 4:25 p.m.
Diane Labelle General Counsel, Legal Services Unit, Department of Health
Madam Chair, I'm Diane Labelle. I am from the Department of Justice, providing legal services to the Department of Health.
Madam Chair, I would like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that “a danger to human health or safety” is the defined term in the act that provides a certain level of legal certainty for manufacturers, importers, and advertisers, against whom clause 7 applies, so they can understand that it's a hazard posed by a consumer product during or as a result of its normal or foreseeable use.
The amendment before you, starting with “or”, goes beyond this and creates uncertainty, in my view, respectfully, that manufacturers would know what that exposure to a harmful substance released into the environment means with respect to their particular product, because now it goes beyond the scope of use. It could be a product that gets broken up and then gets released into the air, which is not an anticipated or foreseeable use, the structure upon which this bill was built.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
When I was reading it, “no manufacturer or importer shall manufacture, import, advertise or sell a consumer product that”, and the way it's written now, “is a danger to human health or safety”, and how it's changed, it adds, “is a danger to human health or safety”, and then goes into “either from direct exposure to the product”, and it goes on.
For me, it almost sounds as if by doing that you're watering down the definition of danger. From my reading, it would be better to keep it just the straight line, “is a danger to human health or safety”. That way you're not.... You could say, “either from direct or indirect exposure to the product, or from the exposure to a harmful substance released from the product into the environment”, or where it is. Do you know what I mean? What if somebody ingests it? It could be in the body or something.
I know the intent here is to be more specific, but I think maybe it would be better to just leave it general. It would cover more, wouldn't it?
4:25 p.m.
General Counsel, Legal Services Unit, Department of Health
Madam Chair, this is to say that what the member is speaking to is already provided for in the statute, in the proposed bill before you, through the definition of “consumer product”. This would be an unnecessary addition if you're looking at paragraph 7(a) as worded now.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In our discussions about CEPA, one of the concerns is that CEPA takes a long time to actually finalize restrictions on a product. When we have consumer products and there's exposure to people who are vulnerable, CEPA simply isn't fast enough. We need something that can be used more quickly, so that's part of the rationale for this amendment.
Is there a way to address the concerns Dr. Carrie has about lack of clarity in paragraph 7(a) here, while maintaining the intent of this amendment and the benefits of a quicker response than we get through CEPA, which is frustrating to the public and also departments in government, I understand?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I'm in real trouble now.
I was going to disagree with Colin. I think, actually, there's nothing about this that weakens the definition; it goes in new directions that I think the officials are saying we can't do in this particular legislation. I think the amendment the Liberals have proposed is to take us in a direction that helps us deal with chronic issues and when you have substances in a product that, either through direct or indirect exposure, lead to health problems. Yes, as Diane Labelle said, it would be about a product breaking down and leaching into the environment and then back into the water supply and back into whatever. So I think that's really what is at the heart of this. How do you get at that broader issue?
Maybe we could take an example of bisphenol A, which has only been banned in terms of baby bottles but not anywhere else, yet we don't really know how much.... It's in so many different products and could leach in so many different ways that we don't know what that could mean in terms of human health, and we're not yet at the stage, I don't think, where the department is willing to say, let's ban all bisphenol A. However, given today's announcement in question period about banning lead and phthalates, I can see that it's possible eventually. What happens now when we know the dangers and we know there are problems, and how do we protect against that? I'd like a further discussion on that.
Secondly, I'd like an answer on the definition of human health and safety on page 3. It does talk about chronic adverse effects on human health. Would that in any way cover the words here around direct exposure or exposure through the environment?