Bill C-6 (Historical)

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

An Act respecting the safety of consumer products

This enactment modernizes the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada. It creates prohibitions with respect to the manufacturing, importing, selling, advertising, packaging and labelling of consumer products, including those that are a danger to human health or safety. In addition, it establishes certain measures that will make it easier to identify whether a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety and, if so, to more effectively prevent or address the danger. It also creates application and enforcement mechanisms. This enactment also makes consequential amendments to the Hazardous Products Act.

Health

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. Your committee has examined the bill, decided to report it with amendments, and ordered its reprint. I wish to thank all members of the committee for their hard work and cooperation.

[Paul Glover]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to comment on this amendment.

The first point I would make is that this amendment would cause the department problems with respect to the scope of the amendment, as it differs quite significantly from what is in the original Bill C-6. Therefore, the resource implications around this are such that I would not be able to certify—as currently resourced for Bill C-6 and the anticipation of it—that we would be able to deliver these. It is a very broad departure and would have significant resource implications.

With respect to some of the more specific comments, I've already spoken about CEPA, which again does much of this, including children's toys and products. It does take care of the most vulnerable populations and does specific assessments taking those into account, whether they be children, aboriginal, or unborn children. There are a number of ways in which the assessments are done that are designed to be extremely protective and very conservative when designed to assess the substance and be protective of health.

With respect to some of the specific comments, such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer, those are ones that have specific health points. I would like to inform the committee that CEPA looks at broader sets of health points beyond only cancer and is concerned about developmental and reproductive health end points. Therefore, it is in fact more protective of human health. So while we are also introducing duplication, it is on a narrower set of criteria than that which exists under CEPA.

Furthermore, IARC, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, is very clear in their own preamble that this is a list of substances that are known may cause cancer in humans or in animals and they do not suggest this is a proxy for individual jurisdictions, but that each jurisdiction should do their own assessment. This would be using that list for a purpose which the authors acknowledge right upfront in their preamble to not use that list for.

Reviewing the list every 12 months goes back to the comment I made with respect to the workload on establishing all these limits, exemptions, and processes. This would be incredibly resource-intensive for literally hundreds of thousands of consumer products.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The idea here is that there is a particular subset of goods that creates greater vulnerability than general consumer products, and that's children's toys and children's products. We know that the impact of toxins on children is not in a ratio to weight. If the child has one-tenth the weight of an adult, that doesn't mean that one-tenth of the dose would have the same impact on the child. In fact, especially with babies, when their systems are still developing and their neurological development is still under way, products can have a much greater impact than the ratio to weight would suggest. We have to be more precautionary with babies.

We also know that there are conditions we don't yet have an explanation for, such as the explosion of incidents of childhood autism. I'm not suggesting that I know what the cause of that is, but this kind of situation causes us, the Liberal caucus members, to want to be more precautionary in how we approach Bill C-6.

So that's what the rewrite of the amendment is intended to do.

If you look at the schedules that cover which chemicals would no longer be allowed under Bill C-6, it's a pretty short list. If you go to the lists of chemicals that have been identified through cancer research and are listed as in new paragraph 8.1(1)(a), there's a larger list. What we're talking about is coming up with a broader list of chemicals that would place onus differently.

The onus in the general bill is that, other than for a very short list, the onus is on industry to figure out whether something is harmful in a toy or child's product, and they may not find that out. It may be affecting children for years, as some of the flame retardants and so on were. This is a more precautionary approach whereby we take the chemicals that have been identified as a problem for children and the onus changes. We say of them that unless it can be shown that it is necessary to use one or that it is not actually harmful, we consider these as being harmful, and they should be phased out over a defined time period. That's essentially what this amendment is about.

We have a printing or editing error in new subclause 8.1(4). I don't know whether this is the time to read the correction into the—

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

I think people will have it now in front of them.

The issue with the amendment is that we felt the complementary nature of CEPA and Bill C-6 is important and admirable, but it is important to be absolutely clear that any harmful substance is not just affecting immediate human health and safety. But if it was released into the environment, then over time it would be one of these exposures that would be bad for the environment and eventually bad for humans and animals. We explain that part in the various examples.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, we had considerable discussion with representatives of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, with industry representatives and with Option consommateurs. They told us that the number of inspectors is a serious problem. Witnesses have often told us that there are not enough inspectors.

We all recognize the merits of Bill C-6, but there is a serious shortage of inspectors. This bill will become meaningless if there are insufficient inspectors. So it is extremely important that the bill provide for sufficient staff and inspectors.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, it is useful to emphasize this. I move that Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 31 on page 9 the following new clause:

17.1 For greater certainty, the minister may disclose to the public information about a danger to human health or safety that a consumer product poses.

The bill is clearer with the obvious statement that the minister may communicate the information to the public.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I move that Bill C-6 be amended by replacing line 31 on p. 9 with the following:

or the environment, if the disclosure of the information is essential to address the danger.

After having discussed this with Option consommateurs and the industry, we think that this amendment is helpful in anticipating a danger of this kind and in making sure that the danger really is great.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate this amendment, which follows through on the government's commitment to ensure that Bill C-6 doesn't have implications for natural products. I did want to just raise a concern around the general field, because there are few opportunities to do so.

We've all been hearing recently from representatives of the Canadian Health Food Association expressing concern about the backlog. We had been told that the backlog was being dealt with. Our understanding, based on meetings today, is that this is not the case. In fact, if the backlog is being dealt with at all, it is because products are being denied that request and applications are being turned down. We understand that there has been little effort on the part of the department to ensure that industry and NHP are working together to make sure there are some common understandings about safety and efficacy standards and to expedite natural health products as much as possible.

So I would like, Madam Chair, some indication from the parliamentary secretary that we might have a report to the committee or some follow-up to those concerns. Even though we're passing this amendment and we appreciate the work that has been done to get us here, we know there are big concerns that should be dealt with. We've got to find a way, especially with the stated deadline of 2010, which is causing enormous concern in the industry. I think their feeling is that we need to actually get rid of that deadline, or find a process to accelerate the approval process, or find some way to begin to expedite things in a meaningful way. We need to deal with the very serious concerns that both the industry and the people who are using natural health products are raising.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to committee.

Today we're going to try to do things as tightly as we can. I understand there are members of Parliament who need to catch planes following our meeting, so their timelines are very tight.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 30, 2009, we are examining Bill C-6, an Act respecting the safety of consumer products. We have with us today from the Department of Health Paul Glover, Robert Ianiro, Charles Ethier, and Diane Labelle.

Welcome. We're so glad that you can join us in clause-by-clause for this very exciting event this afternoon.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 is postponed.

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4--Consumer products)

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am only too happy to respond as I do every Thursday, with transparency, openness and in a spirit of co-operation with my colleagues across the way.

Today and tomorrow we will consider Bill C-15, the drug offence bill. However, as my colleague the Minister of Justice noted, the NDP members seem to be unnecessarily dragging the debate on the bill out. We will also consider Bill C-25, truth in sentencing; Bill C-34, protecting victims from sex offenders; Bill C-19, anti-terrorism; and Bill C-30, the Senate ethics bill.

Next week I intend to add to this list, Bill S-4, identity theft; and Bill C-6, consumer product safety.

As always, I will give priority to any bills that have been reported back from our hard-working standing committees.

In the response to the question about the allotted days, within the next week I will be designating Thursday, June 11 as an allotted day.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Liberal House leader often asks specific questions about specific bills on Thursday, so I hope you will entertain a few comments of my own.

First of all, I would like to recognize that, to date at least, there has been good co-operation from the opposition in moving our legislative agenda forward, not only in this chamber but in the other place as well. I want to thank the opposition for that co-operation.

However, yesterday we passed in this place, at all stages and without debate, Bill C-33, the bill that will extend benefits to allied veterans and their families. For this bill to become law, we need the same co-operation in the Senate. I would urge the opposition House leader to deliver that message to his senators.

I understand that the Governor General is here today and could actually give royal assent to the bill. It would not only be symbolic but a substantial gesture to those veterans who are reflecting on and participating in the 65th anniversary of D-Day on June 6, this weekend.

The other bill I want to specifically mention is Bill C-29, the agricultural loans bill. In one of his Thursday questions, the member for Wascana took an interest in this bill. He suggested, and I quote from Hansard, that “we might be able to dispose of it at all stages”. I appreciate that level of support for this important and time-sensitive bill in the House, but the member needs to coordinate his support with his Senate colleagues in order to get this bill passed and the increased loans made available to our farmers in a timely manner.

Any communication from the member for Wascana and any persuasiveness he may bring to bear upon his Liberal colleagues in the other place would be greatly appreciated by me and the government.

[Andrew King, Department Leader, Health, Safety and Environment, United Steelworkers]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present today.

I have provided a copy of my comments. I apologize to you that they are not also available in French, but I should let you know that I found out yesterday about noon that I would be here this afternoon.

I appreciate the amount of work you've been involved in with regard to this very important legislation and have taken the time to review the comments of people who have come before you.

By way of background, the United Steelworkers is an international union, with members across Canada and the United States. In Canada our union is very diverse, with members in almost every sector of the economy.

As our name implies, we have a long history in mining, steelmaking, metalworking, and manufacturing. From that history, we have a lot of experience with toxic chemicals and the diseases they cause. We were involved in bringing WHMIS, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, into Canada in the 1980s, and to this day we are still dealing with the impacts of chemical exposures on our members and their communities. Recent occupational disease clinics in Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury attracted hundreds of people. We are supporters of the recent Ontario Toxic Chemicals Reduction Act, currently in third reading, as well as community right to know at the municipal level.

The toxicity of many of the chemicals we are concerned about in the environment and consumer products today was originally demonstrated in the lives of workers and the damage it did to their health. Many of the strategies that speak of controlling exposures, limiting risk instead of advising hazards, and personal protection responsibility were tried and failed in the occupational setting. Years ago we were told there were safe limits of exposures to most chemicals. Since then exposure limits have become lower and lower, as studies continue to show there is no safe level of exposure to toxic chemicals, especially if the exposure is repeated and over a lifetime.

We need to talk about the total burden of chemicals in our bodies from all sources, including the environment. This government's and the Ontario government's investment in green chemistry innovation at Queen's University in Kingston is recognition that we have to find a better way to produce the chemicals we need.

Our membership was deeply moved in 2007 when a wave of toxic toys hit Canada, many of which were contaminated by lead. After a decade of fighting in North America to have lead removed from paints and gasoline, after decades of controlling the exposure in smelters, mills, and other industries, something is wrong when the system allows lead to be used in consumer products.

Some of us still remember that it was the impact of our children originally being exposed to lead in communities in Canada in the 1960s that gave impetus to the regular reform that reduced those exposures and gave us the legislation we're reviewing now.

It did not seem right to us that such a well-known hazard should be allowed back into Canada by trade. Our activists became involved in a Get the Lead Out campaign across Canada and the U.S., adding our voice to others who felt that something had to be done. Product safety must not be left to voluntary systems and the luck of the draw.

I might say in parenthesis here that we were quite astounded at the response we got from our members. We have a long history and involvement in occupational health and safety and activists who are trained to deal with those issues, but it wasn't those activists who responded to the problem of toxic toys. It was the average member, the member who had children, particularly women, who were at the forefront of making this an issue for our organization and making it a key point in a campaign that led us to distributing information and becoming part of what was originally the movement toward Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, and now Bill C-6.

We are also encouraged to be here by our environmental partner, Environmental Defence. Aaron Freeman, the research director, has already addressed you. Our alliance with Environmental Defence focuses on the impacts of toxic chemicals and climate change. Environmental Defence's “Toxic Nation” campaign has shown that the challenge we face is much bigger than we think. It confirms the experiences of workers that the chemicals are in our bodies now. We are here to support their efforts and their position--and of many of the other environmental groups that I note have already spoken to you--that we need to reduce exposures through consumer products.

To quote the title of the book that Environmental Defence's chair and executive director recently co-authored, we must prevent Death by Rubber Duck,, a book that I highly recommend to each of you if you have not had a chance to review it.

To the point of our remarks regarding Bill C-6, like many others who have appeared before you, and most of the people here this evening, we support the goal and objectives of the bill. It is important that there be a mandatory reporting system for toxins and hazards in consumer products and a clear system for enforcement. While the bill has a number of these important features, it needs to be strengthened in order to achieve its goals as described in the preamble.

In particular, we support amendments suggested by Environmental Defence. Strengthening the bill now will benefit us all in the long run. The bill provides strong language regarding prohibition, but is weak in identifying the problems proactively and sets the bar for action too high.

The bill needs a proactive system of inspection and verification. In this regard, I note the previous evidence that was given by Mr. Glover on behalf of the government in regard to this bill. He in fact spoke about the bill having a proactive nature to it. I must confess to being surprised that he characterized it that way, because it seems to me the system, with all the improvements proposed, is still fundamentally reactive. Until someone discovers a problem--inadvertently, if something has happened, or if a group of doctors notice it in their patients--nothing is done. There is no system through which to go and get proactive information. And that, particularly when you're dealing with imports, which, as was previously noted, are a key part of this problem, needs to be part of the system.

What is needed is an administrative system to ensure that manufacturers and importers--and I emphasize them in particular--are testing their supply chain to make sure toxic chemicals are not getting into the products. The government needs a system of independent verification through random reviews. A testing protocol is required to protect consumers and to raise the bar for company testing. Without that protection, the legislation is at risk of encouraging "Don't ask, don't tell".

We strongly believe that there needs to be the policing function as outlined in the act. In addition, however, we believe there needs to be an administrative review program to ensure that the highest levels of performance and protection are being followed.

[Mel Fruitman, Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Consumers' Association of Canada is a 62-year-old, independent, not-for-profit, volunteer-based organization, with a national office in Ottawa, and provincial and territorial representatives. Our mandate is to inform and educate consumers on marketplace issues, to advocate for consumers with government and industry, and to work with government and industry to solve marketplace problems in beneficial ways.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-6. We are pleased to see the introduction of this important piece of consumer legislation, after more than two decades of relative inattention by all levels of government, and we urge you to help hasten its passage.

The current legislation came into being almost 40 years ago during a period when consumer activism reached its peak. It was then that people began to realize that there was a huge imbalance in the marketplace—consumers were entering into transactions with increasingly sophisticated business operators. At that time, legislation was simply playing catch-up with all of the economic, financial, and demographic developments that had occurred since the end of World War II.

In the interval, Canada has seen changes that are just as dramatic, if not more so. We have become a nation of consumers made up of many ethnic backgrounds, living in various economic circumstances and carrying various levels of debt. Where we used to eat mostly locally produced food and buy products that may have been manufactured by our neighbours, we now purchase a huge range of goods of increased complexity, the majority of which come from outside the country. Even many of our services are outsourced. The balance has again tilted dramatically so that Canadian consumers are at a disadvantage in the marketplace. With the proliferation of new products, most Canadians feel that our health and safety has been compromised. This impression has been reinforced by items such as tainted toothpaste, lead paint in toys, tainted seafood, salmonella, and listeriosis outbreaks.

This leads me to two of the most significant provisions in Bill C-6. One is the change from the proscriptive regime of the Hazardous Products Act, in which only listed or designated products were covered, to a results-based regime, which prohibits the supply to consumers of products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety. The results-based regime gives us the flexibility to meet changing market conditions and to react immediately when a threat is identified, rather than having to go through a lengthy regulatory process.

The second provision flows from the first. In the past, when a hazardous product was identified, the minister could do nothing more than, in effect, go cap in hand and ask the supplier to recall the offending item. If the supplier did not voluntarily do so, the minister was powerless to force the action. Thus many products that should not have been offered for sale remained on retailers' shelves. Now the government will be able to remove and recall offending products, without relying on the good conscience of the supplier, and will even be able to cause action to be taken at the supplier's expense, should the response be inadequate or untimely.

This bill also provides for fines and penalties to be brought to bear for non-compliance. This is something that was sorely missing in all previous legislation and is needed to encourage appropriate behaviour. Additionally, the establishment of a mechanism for mandatory reporting of adverse events and incidents will help establish an early-warning system, identifying problems much sooner in their sale cycle.

The Consumers' Association recognizes that there will be a learning process on the part of all participants, and the sooner we get started the better. Given the current economic downturn, sales of consumer goods have declined somewhat. While some may argue that this reduces the urgency for passage of the bill, it is feared that this climate may encourage some suppliers to cut corners in order to retain profitability.

With the passage of Bill C-6, the Canadian government will have taken a big step towards improving consumer protection. Once this has been done, the Consumers' Association of Canada suggests that the government, through this and other appropriate committees, give consideration to raising the status of Canadian consumers and their marketplace needs. Nowhere in Canada, either provincially or federally, is there a cabinet-level department devoted solely to consumer protection. Where there is an agency with this responsibility, it is always combined with some other function, which is often inappropriate. When Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada was broken up many years ago, many of its functions were hived off to other departments, with a rump group known as the Office of Consumer Affairs establishing itself in Industry Canada. Perhaps most inappropriately, food safety came under the aegis of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which reports through the Minister of Agriculture, who is also responsible for promoting the sale of foodstuffs.

That was an aside to make us think about something for the future. But once again, I urge the committee to help effect early passage of Bill C-6 and bring Canadian consumer protection into the 21st century.

I tried to be very brief and highlight some of our main considerations. Thank you for listening. I'll be pleased to try to answer your questions.

[Emile Therien]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm accompanied by Ethel Archard, who also retired from the Canada Safety Council. So you can tell what the council does with their old employees: they keep them busy. Anyway, thank you again for having us.

Globalization and new technologies have led to an influx of products into the Canadian market. The Hazardous Products Act urgently needs to be amended to meet the challenges of the 21st century. But that does not mean we need a brand-new law. The Canada Safety Council recommends that the government build upon the existing act by amending it to address current and future needs. That legislation has been in place for over 40 years, and has served Canadians extremely well--that is, as long as it has been properly resourced and promoted.

In the interest of public health and safety, there is absolutely no need to start from scratch with a new law that may not be fully implemented for many years. The approach that should be taken is to amend the existing Hazardous Products Act. Some of the perceived inadequacies in the act have resulted from the lack of proper enforcement. To be effective, laws must be enforced. This requires the government's commitment to provide resources: financial, human, and otherwise. Effective regulatory oversight is absolutely critical to public safety. I would like to start by noting that when it comes to consumer product safety, imported products are the major offenders.

In early 2007, tainted pet food from China killed thousands of dogs and cats in North America. Later that year, the U.S. recalled 34 million toys and other products made in China due to lead paint and small powerful magnets that children could easily swallow. Based on the U.S. recall, there would have been over three million of the made-in-China products in Canada. Most are likely still in use. Some will find their way into attics and garage sales, and eventually all will end up in landfill sites, at a disastrous cost to our environment. It would make sense to assume that these incidents would have prompted the Canadian government to take action. Obviously, our existing hazardous product laws needed to be enforced with a focus on imports from China. But that is not what happened.

In October 2008, The Toronto Star published an investigative report on toxic toys being sold in the greater Toronto area. The Toronto Star shopped at 18 stores, large and small, and found high levels of lead in one of every four products purchased. Some of the products were even labelled lead-free. One necklace clasp tested at 150 times above the limit. The investigation in The Toronto Star found that there are only 46 inspectors monitoring stores for all of Canada. Of the 13 in Ontario, 11 are in Toronto and two are left to cover the rest of the province.

An importer who travels to Asia four times a year told The Toronto Star that he never sees officials spot-checking any imports whatsoever. An investigative reporter found that out. Truly it is a travesty that the government sees fit to have so few inspectors to protect Canadians from danger from hazardous goods. At that time, the then Minister of Health, Tony Clement, promised more would be hired. It would be interesting to see how many more inspectors there are today than there were in October 2008.

In November 2006 Auditor General Sheila Fraser raised concerns that Canada was failing due to the lack of enforcement to protect Canadians from dangerous products. She questioned whether there was enough funding for enforcement and even whether the government had given it any thought whatsoever. I would like to point out that not one Canadian manufacturer was implicated in dangerous products that hit the Canadian marketplace over the last while. By imposing strict new requirements, Bill C-6 may put Canadian manufacturers at a disadvantage when trying to compete with imports.

The import of dangerous products on a large scale with impunity and over such a long period of time indicates a serious problem with the enforcement of existing law. Passing a new law will not solve this problem. Amendments to existing legislation occur on a regular basis. For example, the House of Commons passed changes to the Criminal Code of Canada in April 2008 to combat cruelty to animals. The proposed anti-gang legislation will be made, if it does occur, through amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, not a brand-new Criminal Code.

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is continually updated through amendments. Bill C-9, an act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act of 1992, was introduced on February 16 of this year. It went through the House of Commons and the Senate and received royal assent on May 14, a couple of weeks ago.

A new law can have unintended negative consequences. The most obvious are the time and resources required. What will happen to product safety during this transition period? Lawyers and experts have already expressed concerns that companies will contest the very high fines in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Such challenges would slow the implementation of long-overdue measures to protect Canadians.

The bottom line is, who is responsible for product safety? Retailers cannot test everything they sell; they must rely on the supplier and ultimately the Canadian government to assure the safety of products entering and being sold in this country.

Product recalls make the consumer responsible to return unsafe products, and they do not remove all the offending products from the marketplace. For the kinds of hazardous products covered in the legislation, most consumers are indifferent to recalls—with the possible exception of high-priced items. Imposing new requirements on Canadian manufacturers will not prevent unsafe imported toys from being sold in this country.

The Hazardous Products Act needs to be updated, but a brand-new law is not needed. What is needed is the amendment of the existing act and a serious commitment to promotion and enforcement.

Thank you very much.

[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?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Can you talk about other improvements to consumer product safety that are going to result from Bill C-6?