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.

[Lucienne Lemire, Chair, Health and Food Safety Committee, Consumers Council of Canada]

Thank you for inviting the Consumers Council of Canada to present this brief. I would like to introduce my colleague Gail Campbell, who is director and member of the health committee. My name is Lucienne Lemire, and I am chair of the health committee.

The brief was written in English. Since I'm not gifted enough to provide a simultaneous translation of it, I'm going to present it to you in English.

This is the submission of the Consumers Council of Canada to the Standing Committee on Health with regard to Bill C-6, an act respecting the safety of consumer products.

The Consumers Council of Canada is an independent not-for-profit organization, federally incorporated in 1994 to bring a consumer voice to important local, regional, and national issues. The council works collaboratively with consumers, business, and government to solve marketplace problems. We aim to inform consumers, business, and government alike about their rights and obligations.

Our cooperative, practical engagement contrasts with the more traditional adversarial approaches to advocacy. The council believes it is good business to address consumer issues effectively.

The Consumers Council of Canada believes the provisions proposed in Bill C-6 both support the needs of all stakeholders and establish the key factors necessary for an effective product safety program. The council has identified five major gaps in part of the Hazardous Products Act, the existing product safety legislation, and how Bill C-6 will address these gaps.

The five gaps are as follows: first, the inability to prevent unsafe products from entering the Canadian market; second, the inability to deal with unregulated products or hazards; third, the inability to detect and identify dangerous products at an early stage; fourth, the inability to respond quickly and appropriately to dangerous products; and fifth, the inability to deal with deceptive labels or marks.

I would now like my colleague to explain how we see that the new bill, Bill C-6, addresses these gaps.

[Jeff Hurst, Chair of the Board, Canadian Toy Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

As chairman of the Canadian Toy Association, I appreciate this opportunity to help advance our shared goal of improving toy safety by addressing Bill C-6, an act respecting the safety of consumer products. With me, also from the Canadian Toy Association, is Arthur Kazianis, who will assist in answering members' questions this evening.

The Canadian Toy Association's 110 members are manufacturers, importers, and distributors of toys, generating about $1.8 billion of annual retail sales in Canada. Although the Canadian industry is large, our core members are actually smaller Canadian businesses.

CTA's members are vitally concerned about toy safety. Since recalls by some large multinational toy companies two years ago, our members have worked hard to further enhance toy safety. Toy manufacturers have increased their investment in safety throughout the product development process, including the evaluation of product designs and testing prototypes throughout the manufacturing process. This includes testing raw materials, preproduction samples, in-process goods, and finished products. Toy manufacturers also audit the compliance of their vendors and suppliers, ensuring that they are following safety procedures.

There is consensus among experts that this focus on safety throughout the product development process is the best way to ensure safety. These measures have greatly improved our members' ability to ensure toy safety in a global economy. Apart from these private initiatives, CTA recognizes that the government can further advance our mutual goal of enhanced toy safety. CTA accordingly supports the government's initiative to update Canada's consumer product safety law, and we welcome this opportunity to work with the government and Health Canada.

I would like to emphasize that this legislation will be guiding the government and stakeholders for many years to come, and we therefore urge the committee to take its time while reviewing this bill to avoid any unintended consequences. There are many significant issues within this bill that will impact Canadian businesses.

There are three areas in which CTA thinks Bill C-6 could be improved: the reporting of incidents; preservation of confidential business information; increased alignment of international safety standards and procedures.

As to incident reporting obligations, we recognize that genuine safety issues must be reported to the government in a timely manner. At the same time, our members receive and carefully analyze thousands of reports from consumers each year, the vast majority of which do not raise genuine safety issues. It is important to ensure that the government is promptly notified of safety issues without causing the toy industry to flood the government with every report from consumers around the world.

We have discussed this issue with Health Canada, which recognizes this need for balance. However, CTA believes that Bill C-6 itself should at least provide clear guidance to better inform Health Canada's implementation.

As to preserving confidential business information, Health Canada unquestionably must have the power to disclose information as necessary to protect consumers from danger. At the same time, publication of unsubstantiated consumer reports that have not been investigated properly may give rise to false alarms. This could corrode the credibility of Health Canada and create unnecessary anxiety, or even panic, among consumers. It could also seriously damage good toy companies that have spent years building their reputation.

We urge that Bill C-6 be amended to make clearer the scope of commercial information the minister could disclose, and to require the government to notify a company if and when its confidential information is going to be released.

As to the alignment of international safety standards, the toy industry operates in a global economy. Aligning international safety standards and procedures, which often address the same issues, would benefit regulators, industry, and Canadians. It would eliminate the need to duplicate toy testing where the tests are only slightly different. It would facilitate trade and reduce costs to consumers, and it would enable closer cooperation and enforcement by Health Canada and its counterparts around the world.

Indeed, increased alignment of international standards is an explicit goal of Health Canada. For example, one of the objectives in the 2005 memorandum of understanding between the United States and Health Canada regarding consumer product safety is to make our standard-related measures as compatible as feasible.

While there are many different voluntary and mandatory safety standards for toys, the standards established by the respected International Organization for Standardization, commonly known as ISO, have been adopted in more countries around the world than any other. Even those countries that have set their own standards have turned to variations on the ISO standards. The European Union has largely adopted a variation of those standards, and the United States has recently implemented standards that closely track to the ISO standards as well.

CTA and its members urge Canada to take advantage of the experience reflected in standards already adopted by other countries. Canada, of course, must be free to adopt its own different standards to the extent necessary to protect its youngest citizens, but in light of the advantages of aligning international standards, departures from accepted existing standards should be the exception rather than the rule.

Madam Chair, in summary, the CTA applauds these efforts and supports the principles in Bill C-6. Again, we urge the committee to take its time while reviewing this bill to avoid any unintended consequences.

As we go forward, we want to work with the government to refine and improve the bill in the three areas I mentioned.

First, we request the clarification of reporting objectives. We want to ensure that Health Canada obtains the information it needs to protect consumers but does not, at the same time, create a crippling volume of consumer reports that do not reflect a safety issue.

Second, we request that Bill C-6 ensures that confidential business information is released publicly only to the extent necessary to address a genuine safety risk, and that advance notice be provided to the affected businesses.

Third, we believe Canadian consumers and companies, as well as the government, would benefit greatly from increased alignment with international safety standards and procedures. At the same time, we must preserve our ability to depart from international standards where it is necessary to do so.

On behalf of the CTA members, I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and the other members of the committee for the opportunity to speak here today on a matter that is vitally important to all of us, particularly the CTA and its members.

Arthur and I would be pleased to respond to members' questions at the end.

Thank you.

[Joel Taller, Legal Counsel, Canadian Health Food Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Joel Taller. I'm legal counsel to the Canadian Health Food Association, the CHFA.

On behalf of the association, I'd like to thank this committee for the important work you do and the opportunity to appear before you to address an important piece of legislation, Bill C-6.

The CHFA is Canada's largest national trade association dedicated to the natural and organic products industry. Our members represent the entire supply chain, including growers, manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors, and importers involved in a variety of industry subsectors, such as vitamin and mineral supplements, herbal products, homeopathics, sports nutrition products, natural and organic fibres, and health and beauty aids. The products support Canadians seeking to enhance and maintain health and well-being and together represent an industry worth more than $3.5 billion annually.

Our interest in Bill C-6 stems in part from our disappointment that natural health products were not specifically articulated as being exempt from Bill C-6 and our concern with respect to some of the new powers proposed in Bill C-6, which might find their way into future amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. We have written the minister expressing our concern that natural health products were not specifically mentioned as exempt from Bill C-6 and we have received a positive response from the minister indicating that amendments will be proposed that address our concern. We hope this committee will support any proposed amendment that will specifically articulate in the proposed legislation that natural health products will be exempt.

We also believe in the importance of having a variety of powers available to both the Minister of Health and inspectors, should it be necessary. As a $3.5-billion industry in Canada, the majority of our industry is small and medium-sized enterprises that are working hard to comply with the current regulations. As a regulated industry built on innovation, the economic impact of heavy enforcement without the necessary checks and balances is not acceptable. While we are pleased to see that the government recognizes the need for enhanced powers, nonetheless it will be important for those granted these additional powers to understand their limits. It remains our concern that there should be reasonable oversight with respect to the exercise of those powers.

Over the years, our members and the industry as a whole have argued for an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework that recognizes the unique and low-risk nature of natural health products. The 1998 Standing Committee on Health's 53 recommendations, contained in the report entitled “Natural Health Products: A New Vision”, gave stakeholders hope that their voice had been heard by the federal government.

The first recommendation was for the creation of a definition for “natural health products” distinct from food and drugs, and for the Food and Drugs Act to be amended accordingly. Stakeholders were told by Health Canada in 1998 that the most expedient way to implement the decisions of the standing committee was not to wait for an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, but rather, in the interim, accept the implementation of the natural health product regulations, with NHPs defined therein as a “subset” of drugs.

This was only to be a short-term fix until such time as the Food and Drugs Act as it was amended was part of a more comprehensive review. Not only is this perception of NHPs being a subset of drugs troubling, but many within the industry believe this has resulted in a shift in the interpretation by the regulator of a regulatory framework bringing those requirements more in line with drugs.

Our members have expressed concern that their experiences with the natural health products directorate no longer appear to follow the original intent of the standing committee. In many cases the expectations that have been applied to NHPs are the same as or more stringent than those applied to drugs, including drugs that were previously approved by Health Canada. This is not acceptable.

Make no mistake, the CHFA is committed to the highest level of consumer safety. That said, the principle of smart regulation is not reflected in the experience of our members. Despite the generally low-risk nature of NHPs, in many cases our industry is experiencing the very same regulatory rigours as drugs. In today's economy, the Canadian public is not well served by a regulatory regime that hinders innovation with no discernible increase in consumer protection. These are safe and well-designed products, for which the regulatory framework should promote, not impede, innovation, bringing to Canadians new, safe, and high-quality products, allowing them to take charge of their health while allowing the industry to create jobs across the country.

The natural health products and organic industry believes in providing safe, effective, and high-quality products to Canadians working to enhance and maintain health and well-being. We therefore recognize the need to ensure that all products are safe. Our industry believes contaminated products should be removed from the marketplace and not be made available for sale. This is critical to the continued growth of our industry in Canada.

In closing, CHFA hopes that this committee will support amendments that will specifically reflect that natural health products are exempt from Bill C-6 and ensure that the suite of powers provided for in Bill C-6 are subject to reasonable checks and balances that will ensure the health of Canadians while permitting those who are subject to those powers an opportunity to respond in an appropriate manner and within a reasonable timeframe.

Thank you very much for your time this evening.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You will be? Excellent. Thank you very much; that's great.

Are you pleased to know that Bill C-6 can be used to regulate snow and ski helmets and to ensure that helmets are labelled properly so that consumers know they are purchasing safe products?

[Shannon Coombs]

As a mom, I think Bill C-6 is going to do a good job; I do.

[Kim Ayotte]

I can't personally speak on behalf of what enforcement capabilities are out there right now, so I wouldn't want to make a statement on behalf of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs to indicate there isn't enough. I can only speak on behalf of what we see in the homes and the damage we see from these incidents. We see the burned babies, the electrocutions, and the damage. We are in favour of any legislation that will help prevent that. That's why we strongly support Bill C-6.

On the counterfeit issue, we see similar activities. Many times when we identify something that has been CSA-approved--for example, a light fixture or any type of appliance--when we do an investigation we try to identify what within the unit caused the fire. Many times we spend a lot of resources investigating these types of incidents because they've had tragic consequences. As a result we have uncovered several incidents where fraudulent CSA-approval markings have been on the products.

Unfortunately for the consumer, our method of sharing that information isn't very quick. We don't have a quick enforcement action to go out and ask for a mandatory recall of these types of products. We tend to use the capabilities of CSA and other types of testing, like ULC, to enforce it. But many times we're talking about months, if not years, before those dangerous products are either off the shelf or have been identified at their source and eliminated.

Again, any type of legislation such as Bill C-6 that could help provide a stronger, more immediate reaction instead of the delay we currently experience would be beneficial. We would definitely embrace it to try to protect our young children.

[Kim Ayotte]

On the flammability of clothing, there are some regulations that do regulate the flammability of clothing. However, with a lot of the clothing coming in from manufacturers from overseas, it's not always guaranteed.

I'm not familiar with, and I'm not here today to speak on behalf of, the enforcement capabilities of that. However, we do believe that Bill C-6 would provide greater enforcement capabilities for those types of manufacturing issues.

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

I'd like to ask a question to the deputy fire chief, if I could. He's been getting off pretty easily here.

I come from a household that has a fire chief and a fire prevention officer in it, so I've heard a lot of things about fire prevention and safety in the home. I've heard about the different aspects, and the horror stories they can come back and tell you about--the frayed wires underneath the rugs, the candles that have caused the house fires, and all those things. We were probably the first home in town to have flameless candles; the rest were all banned.

I know it's a very serious issue for anybody who is in the firefighting field because of the outcomes you see in terms of the safety hazards. I know that you are always concerned about the flammability of kids clothing, for example, and the standards. You also talked about the counterfeiting of different products.

Can you just talk a little bit more about the flammability issues in terms of kids clothing, the protections now, and how Bill C-6 may protect further? Then I'd like to hear a little bit more about the counterfeiting issue and how that would be improved with Bill C-6.

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

Right now, Bill C-6 does have provisions for misleading claims regarding certification and product safety. Is that going to help?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

It's not necessary for you to make that comment with regard to Bill C-6, but with regard to the standard that is—

[Shannon Coombs]

The provision that was included in Bill C-51 was that “No person shall--knowing information to be false or being reckless as to its truth--communicate or cause to be communicated that information with the intent to cause a reasonable apprehension in others” that a consumer product presents a danger to human health or safety.

Clearly, the department feels that's necessary to have with respect to food, therapeutic products, or cosmetics. We felt that the same could be extended to Bill C-6 with the covering of consumer products.

[Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to provide an overview of CCSPA's suggestions to improve Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. I have to say that it's a bit of a tongue twister for me, as our acronym is CCSPA.

My name is Shannon Coombs and I am the president of the CCSPA. I have proudly represented this industry for 10 years. Our accomplishments as a proactive and responsible industry will be clearly visible as I make my presentation.

We are a national trade association that represents 45 member companies across Canada. Collectively, we are a $20-billion industry employing 12,000 people in over 100 facilities. Our companies manufacture, process, package, and distribute consumer, industrial, and institutional specialty products such as soaps, detergents, domestic pest control products, aerosols, hard-surface disinfectants, deodorizers, and automotive chemicals. I have provided the clerk with copies of our one-pager, which has a picture of our products, and I'm sure many of you use them every day.

Why are we here? The health and safety of Canadians is a priority for all CCSPA members and we support this legislation. Our member companies are leaders in the responsible use of chemicals for consumer and institutional products in this country. We are committed to the appropriate and safe use of our products.

Over the past year, we have announced various exciting initiatives, such as the “William, Won't You Wash Your Hands?” initiative, which all of you would have received a copy of a few weeks ago and which we asked you to donate to your local day care or child care facility. That was a partnership with the Public Health Agency of Canada as well as the Canadian Institute of Child Health.

We also announced the voluntary lowering of phosphorus in automatic dishwasher detergent. As well, we have a “Concentrate on the Future” initiative, which is a communication initiative for consumers. I'm sure many of you have seen the 2X or 3X that is now on your laundry or bleach products.

As well, last April, we announced a voluntary ingredient communication initiative that is going to allow companies the ability to disclose all of their ingredients on product labels or members' websites. The great feature of the program is the ability to do this on the website, as it allows companies to explain the benefits and the chemistry behind the products. The program is effective January 1, 2010, and it will cover air care products, automotive and cleaning products, and polishes and floor maintenance products.

Are our member companies' ingredients in products regulated? Yes, they are. Canadians can be confident that the products are safe and that the products they purchase have had various levels of government review and oversight. That oversight depends on the type of product.

In Canada, all substances and products such as laundry powder and liquids, fabric softeners, and dishwashing liquids have had either a new substance notification review or an existing substance review under CEPA and under the chemicals management plan. If any of those consumer products make a claim such as “kills 99.9% of germs”, for example, they're also regulated under the Food and Drugs Act.

As well, the labels on our products are regulated by the consumer chemicals and containers regulations, based under the Hazardous Products Act, which now will fall under Bill C-6. The foundation of that regulation is science. It's a hazard classification, but it provides risk communication to consumers. It has provided precautionary labelling for consumers for the last 39 years. It was just modernized, in 2001, and continues to be an excellent regulatory tool for communicating to Canadians. Elements of CCCR-2001 extend to other products such as food and domestic pest control products.

Our disinfectants are regulated by Health Canada. They have a pre-market assessment and, as with any kind of new substance, review under CEPA as well.

Given the diversity of products, we are subject to various laws and regulations such as CEPA, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Food and Drugs Act. Therefore, we believe that our experience is most beneficial to the committee, as we have been actively involved in the modernization of all these pieces of legislation.

We are seeking two additional clauses for Bill C-6, which include provisions for hoaxes and a provision for a ministerial advisory council. Both amendments would enhance the legislation.

Why? In our experience, a minister's advisory council, such as the one that exists currently under the Pest Control Products Act, and which I'm a member of, is a valuable tool for exchanging information and providing constructive feedback to the minister and the department to help shape and form current and future policies and regulations.

Given the three-pronged approach outlined by the officials--active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response--an advisory council could be only another effective tool to the minister and the department for implementing Bill C-6. We believe it would enhance outcomes and actions of Health Canada.

Why a provision for hoaxes? We believe that people should be accountable for information or misinformation they provide about consumer products and their ingredients. The provision for hoaxes is borrowed from the legislation that was tabled last April in Bill C-51, the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.

Clearly the government believes there is a problem and they need the authority to take action on Food and Drugs Act products, as it was included in this proposed legislation. Therefore, in the spirit of consistency with other Health Canada legislation, Bill C-6 would be strengthened by providing the government with the authority to deal with people who deliberately seek to mislead consumers on these products as well. The goal should be that consumers have the information they need to make balanced and well-informed choices. Fear should not be allowed to be a marketing tool.

We respectfully request that the committee consider these two additions to the proposed law. We have provided some other minor amendments, such as a consistent precautionary statement in the preamble that would be consistent with CEPA and the Pest Control Products Act, plus some other housekeeping items.

I would like to touch on the issue of labelling, as it was raised here at committee during testimony today. I don't believe there has been enough information, or enough factual information, provided to the honourable members from the department on current regulatory authorities for labelling in this country; nor do I believe the information provided in previous testimony to be complete.

Is additional precautionary labelling warranted, and does it need to be included in this bill? As I stated in my opening remarks, labels on consumer products that contain substances are regulated by CCCR. The regulations are science-based, and they include risk communication. Canadians have been using this system for 39 years. Children are even taught to identify the symbols as early as junior kindergarten. What would be achieved by adding another labelling provision to this act?

Canadians are protected by CCCR. Including an amendment in this legislation for labelling of carcinogens; offering up a California Proposition 65 system; using a straight list-based system, such as using substances listed on schedule 1 of CEPA or IARC; even using the building blocks of GHS--we do not believe these meet the needs of Canadians.

CCSPA supports the consumer's right to know, the right to meaningful information, and the right to accurate information. Do any of those systems provide balanced information to the consumer? How would the government even enforce such a law?

In our opinion, by having parliamentarians amend Bill C-6 to include additional labelling, it would effectively be creating a loophole that would have two negative outcomes--one, the sale of unsafe products; and two, misleading claims on safe products.

Why would there be unsafe products? If a product bears a warning statement or a symbol, then consumers have been duly warned; therefore, where is the accountability? Canadians have public policy and legislative frameworks based on risk. This is not the American system of buyer beware. If a product is unsafe, the Canadian government should take it off the market--period. Why would we put forward an act that allows the government to take action via the general prohibition on unsafe products but allows unsafe products on the market to be sold as long as they're labelled?

Why would there be misleading claims? A system that penalizes ethical companies—my member companies—whose businesses are founded on consumer product confidence, and whose products are safe and do not cause cancer.... They will be forced to be put on their products a misleading claim, because a symbol of “C” on sunscreen or hand sanitizers is not accurate, as the end product is safe, even though they contain IARC-listed substances.

Right now Health Canada does not allow companies to make a claim unless it's true--for example, the level of calcium or vitamin C in products. Therefore, why would government force companies to put a “C” on a label for a product that is not a carcinogen?

If a new labelling amendment does go forward, what will we end up with? We'll end up with chaos in the marketplace and consumer confusion, asking moms to make decisions and do their own risk assessments at the retail level; an ineffective law that can't be enforced; flourishing allegations and lawsuits that waste taxpayers' dollars, exactly as has happened in California; companies forced to overlabel; and barriers to trade. I think we would agree that this is not where we want to be.

I offer these comments to you today as a way of continuing and informing this important debate. If the honourable members are contemplating a substantial change to our risk-based society, then the facts all need to be on the table.

In our opinion, Bill C-6 is a modern piece of legislation that allows this government to take an aggressive and responsive approach to protecting Canadians. It has mandatory recall provisions, incident reporting, a general prohibition to take action on products, and fines. The labelling discussion should not detract us from our collective goal, which is to pass this piece of legislation.

I would be most pleased to answer any questions that the committee has.

[Ondina Love, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists]

Thanks very much for the invitation to be here. Joining me today is Dr. Chantal Kealey. She is the director of audiology with CASLPA.

First, I'd like to explain a little bit about what CASLPA is, our 5,400 members across the country, and what they do. CASLPA is the only national body that supports and represents the professional needs of speech language pathologists, audiologists, and supportive personnel. In doing so, we support our members in maximizing the communication and hearing potential of the people of Canada. Prevention is a key role in this regard.

I think it's worth highlighting the role of audiologists. Audiologists are hearing health professionals who identify, diagnose, and manage individuals with peripheral or central hearing loss, tinnitus, and balance disorders. Audiologists, speech language pathologists, and supportive personnel play an active role in promoting hearing health and in encouraging government policy to ensure that Canadians don't needlessly suffer from permanent hearing damage.

As part of this, CASLPA audiologists have paid particular attention to the hearing health of children, especially as it relates to the safety of children's toys. CASLPA firmly believes that with Bill C-6 the government is moving in the right direction to ensure that the products we have in our homes are safe. It does so by placing an onus on manufacturers to ensure that their products are safe and by giving government the power and capacity to make sure this happens.

Putting the onus on industry to ensure product safety is a welcome change from the status quo and helps to encourage a culture of safety for those who make and sell goods to people in Canada. Giving the minister power to order safety tests on products and, when needed, mandatory recalls ensures that the government is able to respond quickly when problems do arise. Doubling the number of inspectors--the eyes and ears of consumer safety legislation--increases the government's ability to anticipate and respond to consumer product issues.

In short, CASLPA firmly believes that Bill C-6 is a step in the right direction for consumer product safety, but there are other steps to take specifically as this relates to children's toys. Absent from Bill C-6 is a commitment to reduce the acceptable decibel level for toys from the current 100 decibels to a level more in line with international standards, such as the World Health Organization standard of 75 decibels.

Choking hazards and lead in toys may be more apparent dangers to the public. The danger of noisy toys is often trivialized or dismissed as just annoying to parents, but the danger these toys pose is very real and can cause permanent hearing damage.

On this issue, there are two important considerations: how the amount of permissible noise is measured and how much noise is actually safe for children's small ear canals. Currently, schedule I of the Hazardous Products Act limits the amount of noise children's toys can make to 100 decibels, measured at arm's length. This is markedly higher than the 75 decibels suggested by the WHO. Also, the International Organization for Standardization has recommended that close-to-the-ear toys not exceed 65 decibels.

As a contrast, in a workplace, exposure to 100 decibels would only be considered safe for 15 minutes, and that's for adults. Children, because of their smaller ear canals, are more susceptible to the effects of noise.

What's more, how government currently measures a toy's sound often underestimates its actual effect. As mentioned, currently sound is measured at arm's length. It is no secret that during the routine course of play children will hold toys substantially closer than that, increasing the toy's relative noise and its risk of permanently damaging hearing. Since government cannot mandate how children play with toys, current testing protocols must be revised to reflect actual play situations.

Through Bill C-6, the government has shown a firm commitment to improving Canada's consumer product safety, requiring manufacturers and suppliers to ensure their products' safety while giving the government the tools needed to ensure accountability. This work is to be commended.

It is important that government extend the same effort to help protect the auditory health of children in Canada by further limiting the decibel level of noisy toys to the WHO level of 75 decibels, as echoed in another important piece of legislation, Bill C-357. It should also improve the method by which this level is measured. Under current standards, the amount of allowable noise of a child's toy would be considered a workplace health hazard, even at moderate exposure.

Given the irreversible nature of hearing damage from noise exposure, it is important that government seize the opportunity of this legislation to include a safer noise standard for children's toys. CASLPA members have seen at first hand the hearing, speech, and language implications that can arise from hearing loss due to unacceptable noise conditions.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Kim Ayotte, Deputy Chief, Ottawa Region, Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Kim Ayotte, and I am a chief officer with Ottawa Fire Services. I am here today, however, representing the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the government relations committee.

The CAFC counts as its members over 1,000 fire chiefs located in every province and territory. Overwhelmingly, like me, its members are municipal public servants with the mandate of protecting the lives and property of citizens of the various communities. Within our membership, we also have fire chiefs from industry; airports; other institutions, such as universities and hospitals; armed forces; and many of the country's first nations. No other association can claim this breadth of support, making CAFC truly the voice of fire services in Canada.

The throne speech of October 2007 contained the following statement that was most welcome to Canadian fire services:

Our Government shares the concern of parents about the safety of consumer products and food. Canadians should expect the same standards of quality from imported goods as they do from products made at home. The Government will introduce measures on food and product safety to ensure that families have confidence in the quality and safety of what they buy.

The CAFC stated its support for the throne speech announcement. It supported Bill C-52 and it supports Bill C-6. The primary reason for our strong endorsement of Bill C-6 is stated in our brief, which I'd like to state for the record today.

A significant percentage of responses for every fire department has important consumer product safety implications. Stovetop fires, electrical fires, electrocutions, accidental poisonings, strangulations, and the careless use of candles as well as matches and lighters are a few examples in this regard.

Special mention, however, should be made for the increasing use of chemical compositions in residential furnishings and clothing. Our submission points out that counterfeiting is a serious consumer product safety problem. The use of counterfeit certification marks enables unsafe and deficient products to gain widespread access to the market, and are a direct risk to consumers.

In addition, we are deeply concerned about the vast quantities of cigarettes being imported into this country that do not meet the low ignition propensity standards that CAFC, Health Canada, and the standing committee worked diligently and cooperatively to enact. These illegal cigarettes are far more likely to remain ignited when unattended, and are therefore products that not only threaten the consumers of such cigarettes; they also jeopardize innocent third parties.

Clauses 6 through 9 of Bill C-6 require that no person shall manufacture, import, advertise, or sell a consumer product that is a danger to human health and safety. The CAFC believes the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act will be useful in combatting counterfeit products and illegal products that are currently available to Canadians.

Some submissions that have been presented to the standing committee call for amendments to Bill C-6. To the degree that these amendments are being offered with a view to improving these provisions, they are welcomed by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. However, to the degree that they will weaken the bill, and are intended to unnecessarily delay its implementation, we trust that the standing committee will not support them.

Officials at Health Canada and the members of the standing committee are all to be congratulated when it's considered how far we have come towards improving consumer product safety since October of 2007.

On behalf of our association, I want you to know that I truly appreciate the opportunity you've given me to speak here today. I look forward to receiving your questions.

Thank you.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's again my pleasure to be here with you.

l'm here today to address the health portfolio's main estimates for this fiscal year, which represent an increase of approximately $236 million.

I also want to talk about how our spending and legislative priorities support a stronger focus on the federal role in the health and well-being of Canadians. In particular, this year's main estimates include investments supporting stronger product safety, further recruitment of new health researchers, and better health outcomes for first nations and Inuit.

But before I go any further, I want to address our response to the H1N1 flu virus.

For the better part of a month, public health officials in Canada and throughout the world have been monitoring the development of this virus and responding according to the level of risk. Thankfully, the impact on Canada has been relatively mild so far, but let me be clear: we cannot afford to let our guard down. H1N1 is a new strain of influenza. As a result, we can't be sure of the next turn it will take, so we will stay vigilant and be ready to respond as necessary.

Canadians can take comfort in the fact that we have a well-informed, well-supported, and well-developed pandemic preparedness plan. We will continue working with the provinces, the territories, and international partners, as well as learning from the data we have collected and the research we conduct at the National Microbiology Laboratory.

As precautions, we issued a travel warning advising against non-essential travel to Mexico, stationed more quarantine officers at Canadian airports that receive direct flights from Mexico, and distributed health alert notices to travellers--over 1.5 million a week.

I also want to highlight the achievements of researchers at the National Microbiology Lab who made an important discovery last week by sequencing the genome of Mexican and Canadian samples of this virus, essentially decoding its genetic makeup. This discovery has provided important information for researchers around the world. With this knowledge, we were able to eliminate genetic mutation as a possible reason for why the virus has apparently hit Mexico harder than Canada. Identifying the nature and composition of this virus will also help with vaccine development.

Health Canada experts are working with a vaccine manufacturer on the initial steps toward developing a vaccine. However, it is internationally acknowledged that producing a safe and effective vaccine could take up to six months. It is imperative that we balance the need for speed with quality and safety. In the meantime, should the situation dictate, we have safe and effective anti-viral stockpiles at the ready.

Madam Chair, let me say that so long as this situation persists, we will remain vigilant. As we have from day one, we will keep Canadians well-informed and well-advised as important details emerge. We are constantly considering the effectiveness of everything we do so we can make adjustments and continue to provide the leadership Canadians need and deserve. Providing leadership in protecting the health of Canadians against infectious disease is a key federal health responsibility. It is one we are committed to fulfilling.

As you know, our government has pledged to improve our ability to meet another key federal health responsibility. l'm referring to our commitment to modernize our safety system for consumer, food, and health products. Some of the essential changes we seek are represented in Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. This is important legislation that will bring our consumer product safety regime in line with the realities of today's global economy.

Of course, amendments to the Food and Drugs Act remain part of our food and consumer safety action plan, but for now, I want to thank the members on this committee for your careful review of Bill C-6.

I also want to thank you for your thoughtful input on Bill C-11, the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act. That legislation has been improved, thanks to the work of this committee. The bill will increase biosafety and security at Canadian labs that work with human pathogens and toxins. Please allow me to thank all members for their efforts in putting forward important changes to this bill at committee.

I join all of you in hoping for the quick passage of Bill C-6 and Bill C-11 through the Senate, towards gaining royal assent. The sooner this happens, the sooner the health of Canadians will be better protected.

Of course, research is essential in finding new ways of protecting and improving Canadians' health. It is for this reason that our government is providing further support to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This government is committed to supporting innovation and research.

Budget 2009, or Canada's economic action plan, contains some $5.1 billion in science investments. With respect to health research since 2006, CIHR has benefited from $117.2 million in permanent budget increases and a further $154.6 million in time-limited, targeted funding, supporting priorities such as pandemic preparedness. Furthermore, I'm proud to say that this year's main estimates include greater investments in scholarship programs designed to recruit and develop the health research stars of tomorrow.

And Budget 2009 commits even more.

In the past, CIHR-funded research has led to improvements in cancer treatment, cardiac care, and patient safety. As a result, l'm confident that the investments we're making today to attract new talent will lead to significant health improvements in the future.

This year's main estimates also include new investments for better first nations and Inuit health--today.

As I said in my opening remarks, we're dedicated to sharpening our focus on federal responsibilities. Among the most important objectives within my portfolio is ensuring the availability of health care services for first nations and Inuit.

Today, health disparities between aboriginal communities and the rest of Canada are apparent, and it's our goal to reduce them. As a result, these main estimates invest more than $200 million for core first nations and Inuit health programs, services, and infrastructure to better meet front-line demands.

Indeed, these investments represent a clear focus on federal responsibility, one of my portfolio's primary objectives since 2006. And future decisions will continue to be made along these lines.

Accordingly, this same approach was taken during the health portfolio's strategic review process. In February, I know, members of this committee had questions regarding this, and my officials and I are committed to discussing details with you today. Across the portfolio, Health Canada, the Public Health Agency, and CIHR carefully reviewed their programs to ensure their efficiency and effectiveness. The goal was to reallocate funding to better meet Canadians' needs.

In doing so, officials were asked to propose ways for making programs and services more effective and efficient, to focus on providing programs that are consistent with federal roles and responsibilities, and to align federal activities with the needs and priorities of Canadians. The portfolio will realize the following savings: $44.6 million in 2009-10, $61.7 million in 2010-11, and $108.4 million in 2011-12.

Additionally in February, some committee members feared there would be cuts to important aboriginal and women's health programs. l'm happy to say that these fears were unfounded. In fact, the reinvestments we were able to make will improve our ability to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

For example, Budget 2009 included $35 million over three years to CIHR through the Canada graduate scholarships program to support future research stars, $440 million for first nations and Inuit health care and infrastructure, and $500 million to accelerate the use of electronic health records in Canada, which will lead to higher-quality, more effective health care. These are important investments that are in line with the priorities of Canadians.

In conclusion, I want to take a moment to salute my officials and all employees who have worked so hard in responding to the challenge of the H1N1 flu virus. I also want to thank our partners, both internationally and within Canada, for their ongoing collaboration.

Let me also thank the committee for your work, past, present, and future, and I look forward to the observations that will come from your study on health human resources as well as from the new subcommittee that will study the impact of neurological disease.

As we take further actions to sharpen the focus on the federal role in health, I look forward to your ideas. Thank you, also, for accepting my invitation to visit Nunavut later this month. In my February appearance before this committee, I said that our vision needs to extend north of 60 if we want to be truly national.

This will represent the first time in history that the health committee has visited my home territory, so I thank you for accepting my invitation to broaden our perspective to account for the full vastness of the country we all love so much.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.