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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right. I do understand.

I think, Commissioner, we saw this in Bill C-6, the health bill on human pathogens and toxins, where information could be shared with foreign governments, but the conditions were vague, it could be passed on again, and there were no conditions on how long that information could be kept. It really gets a little convoluted when you get those kinds of things happening.

We'll certainly be commenting on numbers 11 and 12, even though we haven't had witnesses to give us much input. As usual, you've acquitted yourself very well, I think, with your colleagues, in presenting your views on these things to help us better understand where you'd like to go with this.

You're an officer of Parliament and you're charged with a significant responsibility on behalf of Canadians. We know that you're here with the best interests of Canadians at heart, so we thank you kindly for that input.

The committee would like to meet in camera for a short while, so I'm going to excuse you now.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I don't want to get hung up on the title, but the function of the federal government to regulate which chemicals can and cannot be used appears to be a big barrier to what the provinces want to do in reducing toxins in the environment.

I am curious that you would want to put your energy into Bill C-6 to accomplish some of that, as opposed to.... In getting to the goal of having fewer toxic compounds in the environment, do you see that being as effective as making the regulations more effective, whether it means more resources or assessment and amendments to the legislation CEPA is dealing with? I ask because we just aren't moving fast enough to identify and get rid of them.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That question has been asked a number of times since the start, but don't you think, still in the context of the fight against tobacco, that it would be better to give the present Tobacco Act more teeth than to include this part in Bill C-6? How could this help you in concrete terms? A little later earlier you talked about blocking certain new products that might be toxic. In Quebec, those products are already hidden; it's extremely difficult to advertise them. It is increasingly difficult for young people to obtain those products, despite the attempts by the tobacco companies to promote them. It's increasingly complicated for them. Don't you think that giving an anti-tobacco act more teeth would be more useful to you in fighting smoking?

[Cynthia Callard]

This takes us back to the beginning of the Hazardous Products Act. In 1969 when it was brought in, another committee was going on at the same time, called the Isabelle committee. They were receiving all the information about the health hazards of smoking and they were trying to figure out what to do.

At that time it wouldn't have made sense to put tobacco in the Hazardous Products Act because people really didn't know what to think about it. The concern was that it was so dangerous it couldn't be made safe. So if you put all products under the Consumer Product Safety Act, then all tobacco sales would be illegal. For many decades, the health community has been strongly of the view that they don't want to make tobacco products illegal. Putting them underground is not the solution. The solution is to work within a legal system and encourage people to stop smoking.

Virtually all the people who smoke now started smoking after 1969, in fact a good number of them started smoking after the most recent Tobacco Act was passed in 1997, or the first Tobacco Act was passed in 1988.

Another historic example is that between 1986 and 1988, for two years, a committee just like this considered putting tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act and in fact decided to do so. That was Bill C-204. The government introduced another bill, called Bill C-51, which replaced it. In fact, it was written so that if one bill passed, the other one would die.

We've gone this route before of where to put it. We don't want to make tobacco products illegal, but we don't want to continue generation after generation.

So my proposal is that this is the moment we're going to cut the time. We're going to say yes, we'll live with that. People can continue to sell the ones they've got on the market. They can continue to be sold the way they're sold and be governed that way. But from this day forward, we won't have little novelties like a new pack, or a new brand that opens in a fancy way that are all trying to get people to try to use the products. We'll say there will be no more of that stuff. We're only going to live with yesterday's mistakes; we're not going to make more. We don't want to make it illegal, but we don't want to continue the problem.

This is the solution I am proposing to the committee as a way of using the opportunity of Bill C-6 to achieve justice in the manufacturing sector so that all consumer product manufacturers are treated the same at some point, and to achieve public health by reducing the amount of product-based tobacco promotion that will take place.

Thank you.

[Marie Adèle Davis]

Pam mentioned the case of baby walkers, which the Wal-Marts, the Zellers, and the Bay banned, but for which there was a whole sub-market, if you will, on the corner of the street, through garage sales and so on. Having legislation that will lead to more information being in the media and more information being on our website or the Safe Kids Canada website will just help to alert people who may sell them that it is illegal to sell them, and as I said before, it will alert parents that these are products that are not safe.

I can't emphasize enough my agreement with what Pam said during her presentation: that parents will believe that if something is for sale in Canada, it is safe. In the case of the people who were selling that back-to-sleep product and saying, right on their box, “will keep your baby in the position recommended by the Canadian Paediatric Society”, they are going to believe it's safe.

For me, what Bill C-6 does, especially by giving the government the power to pull things off the market very quickly and then to work with us to inform consumers, to inform health care professionals, is just get the word out.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

That's great.

Turning to the Canadian Paediatric Society, I know you also mentioned the magnets and the walkers. How does Bill C-6 help to ban those products faster than the current regime?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming, and thank you for your overall support of this very important bill.

As a new father for fourteen months, I've been out looking at all the different products and buying some things and also trying to do some research here and there where I can. However, you rely on the big stores to help you out on that as well.

I'm going to start off with Safe Kids Canada. How will Bill C-6 promote the objective of safety of children, for children of today and tomorrow?

[Aaron Freeman, Policy Director, Environmental Defence]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

We think this legislation is an important step in bringing Canada up to the standards of other countries in terms of consumer protection from toxic chemicals. We feel this legislation could be greatly strengthened, however, to place Canada among the global leaders in consumer protection and to promote clean technology and jobs in the new economy.

I'd like to propose some possible amendments that we, along with other organizations, believe would significantly improve the bill while still addressing many of the concerns you heard from departmental officials earlier this week. I've submitted to the committee a more comprehensive list of recommendations, which I believe you have before you. They were distributed by the clerk.

I'd like to focus my comments on those dealing specifically with the phase-out of toxic chemicals and a labelling provision to ensure that consumers are made aware that a toxic chemical is contained in a consumer product. The idea here is that if a chemical causes cancer or is a reproductive toxin, there's really no reason it should be used in a consumer product. It was argued here earlier this week that you can't eliminate some chemicals from a product, given the technologies available to detect chemicals at smaller and smaller levels. However, in virtually all cases, including here in Canada, when government bans a chemical, a de minimis threshold is established.

Under California's Proposition 65 law, for example--this is a law that has been in place for more than two decades--the government establishes safe use thresholds that allow well-accepted de minimis thresholds for each substance. Even in Canada's own Hazardous Products Act we allow for background levels of lead under what we call a ban on lead in children's jewellery. These levels are in line with background levels of these substances. This is a well-accepted regulatory practice.

Some may argue that if the level of a chemical is safe, there's no reason to restrict it from a product. However, for many carcinogens, there is no known safe level, and for many developmental toxins it's been shown that low doses may actually be more hazardous than higher doses.

Even beyond these examples, to say that the concentration of a toxic chemical falls below a risk threshold is not the same as saying that it's safe. This approach also seems to ignore the effects of cancer-causing agents in our environment and the need to reduce harmful chemical exposure population-wide.

By focusing on the individual effects resulting from each product use, the department is ignoring the cumulative and synergistic effects of exposure. While exposure from a single product may fall below a risk threshold, there is still a need to reduce overall exposure for many chemicals that have multiple sources and to reduce those sources wherever possible. This is consistent with the precautionary approach, the specific principle of Bill C-6, as well as with international environmental law. The department's approach would appear to be directly contrary to this principle, demanding full scientific certainty before acting to prevent adverse effects.

This is all the more important with regard to environmental exposure. Addressing broader environmental harm caused by consumer products is embedded in the preamble of Bill C-6, yet the department's risk threshold approach--examining one chemical's risk for one person from one product--would often preclude a broader analysis of environmental harm.

For these reasons, we propose a five-year phase-out of chemicals that are known to be potentially carcinogenic or that are reproductive toxins. We've included an exemption provision for the small number of cases in which a chemical can be shown to be harmless and for cases that would involve severe economic hardship. The general prohibition in the bill should also explicitly make reference to exposure via the environment.

Second, I'd like to deal with the labelling issue that came up in testimony earlier this week and that my colleague Ms. Checkland mentioned in her testimony today. As Ms. Checkland has pointed out, there is no assurance that the globally harmonized system will be in place any time soon. However, if a GHS labelling provision is indeed just around the corner, a statutory backstop that provides a legal requirement for labelling within one or two years should only help the department to focus its discussions with stakeholders.

There are some key elements that this legal requirement for labelling must include.

The first is that the list of products covered by the labelling requirement must be comprehensive. As Ms. Checkland pointed out, the current range of products being considered by the department under the GHS system is quite narrow. It does not include the vast majority of household items, including toys, consumer electronics, household furnishings, clothing and textiles, and many other products. The labelling provisions should cover all products that fall under the proposed new Consumer Product Safety Act.

Second, the chemicals on the labelling requirement list should include all chemicals that have been identified as health toxins under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The list should also include internationally listed carcinogens and developmental toxins. Departmental officials raised a number of examples of where such chemicals are in substances such as coffee. That was one of the examples they gave. However, these examples are mainly in the food and drug sector and are well beyond the scope of this bill. Even in the smaller number of cases where the chemical poses no significant health risk in a particular product, the committee can easily put in place an exemption provision.

Third, the label itself should be crafted with a clear hazard label, with the particular health hazard readily apparent to the consumer.

This approach, with these three elements, is consistent with the department's current intentions under the GHS, but their approach would have to be broadened to include far more sectors and more specified chemicals.

Bill C-6 does provide the authority for the minister to require labelling, but such discretionary provisions already exist in CEPA and other legislation and are not being significantly used. Clearly, without a legal requirement, this sort of labelling is very unlikely to happen.

Other jurisdictions globally have moved ahead of Canada on reducing the risks from toxic chemicals in consumer products. Since 1987, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, what I referred to earlier as Proposition 65, has required warning labels for approximately 775 carcinogenic and reproductive toxins. Other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, Massachusetts, and now Ontario, have employed a regulatory approach of eliminating toxic chemicals in the production process and requiring substitution of safer alternatives. These approaches go well beyond the safe threshold approach the department advocates.

We hope the committee will consider bringing Canada up to the standards of these leading jurisdictions and increasing the level of protection afforded to Canadian consumers by providing much-needed information and phasing out toxic chemicals from consumer products.

Thank you.

[Cynthia Callard, Executive Director, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada]

Thank you very much.

I see Bill C-6 as a bit of an historic opportunity. It's not very often that Parliament receives legislation as powerful as this: legislation that creates a whole new framework for corporate responsibility and removes some of the leg irons from health inspectors and allows them to respond to product-based health threats as they are happening.

I'm a fan of this bill, but I'm here to encourage you to amend the bill to ensure that it achieves its objectives and doesn't allow harmful compounds or products to remain improperly regulated.

As a start, I urge you to begin with the recommendation of the Canadian Cancer Society to delete subclause 4(2). Unless amended, this bill will put stronger legal obligations on the manufacturers of floor polish than it will on tobacco manufacturers. I think this is not consistent with our usual approach to targeting the most harmful products.

I hope you'll go further, however, than just changing a statutory exemption into a regulatory exemption, and that you'll see the value of amending the bill to bring tobacco companies' responsibilities in line with those of other manufacturers. We've circulated an amendment that proposes to do this. This amendment would narrow any regulatory exemption for tobacco products to only those products that were on the market on the day that Bill C-6 was introduced in the House.

Tobacco is a historic mistake. We inherited it as a problem. Our parents inherited it as a problem. Unless we do things differently, our children will inherit it as a problem. But the mistakes of the past don't have to be repeated in the future, and they don't have to be repeated in Bill C-6.

The amendment we propose would make 2009 the year when the special exemptions for tobacco companies come to an end. It would not remove the legal supply of cigarettes; it would draw a line in time that accepts the mistakes of the past by exempting existing products but refuses to continue that mistake into the indefinite future.

I'd like to illustrate the need for this approach by presenting the novelty tobacco products that I brought with me today. The clerk, I believe, has circulated one or two. I have a box of others.

About four years ago, tobacco companies exploited some loopholes in the Tobacco Act to launch kid-friendly flavoured tobacco products. With no health warnings, bright colours, and affordable packaging, they look innocuous. These products are inherently harmful, as are all tobacco products, but they are also unreasonably harmful because they're packaged and designed to lure non-smokers into smoking, and because they're packaged in ways to defeat health regulations.

Health Canada would have been the first to know about these products, and the first to receive the survey results showing that the marketing of these products had reached one in three Canadian kids aged one to 19, and that half of the kids who smoked these products never smoked cigarettes. Yet Health Canada did not have the tools to get these products off the market in a timely way. They still don't.

I'm hopeful that Parliament will soon address this serious problem. Bill C-348, introduced by Ms. Wasylycia-Leis earlier this spring, will do the trick and deserves your active support. The Prime Minister has also promised to bring in a government bill that will hopefully also receive strong support from all sides of the House. One way or another, we need a law soon.

Bill C-6 will not solve the problem of these products. It's too late for that. That barn door is open and the horse is gone. But these products exhibit the general problem that Bill C-6 would fix in the future.

The inventiveness of tobacco product companies has not been exhausted. Since Parliament passed the Tobacco Act in 1997, more than 80 patents and 100 trademarks have been filed. The trademarks and patents of today are the products of tomorrow. Traditional laws like the Tobacco Act are not up to the task. They can't pull products off the shelves.

We are told that these products, even when they're banned, will have to stay on the shelves until the supply is exhausted. They are dangerous enough to be taken off the market, yet curiously, we expect consumers—in this case consumers we know to be children—to buy and smoke every last one. The Ontario government banned these products in December, yet on Tuesday I bought the ones I've provided today for you--five months later.

In contrast, Bill C-6, if adopted, could see future products of this type taken off the shelves immediately if a company tried to market them. But its biggest strength would be in the general prohibition clauses of the law. Companies would stop marketing new products unless they could make their products safe enough to satisfy clause 7 of the law, which is the general obligation to not sell products that are a danger to human health or safety.

I see Bill C-6 as an excellent complement to the aging Tobacco Act. The two acts together will, for the first time, make it possible to effectively prevent product marketing for tobacco.

On Tuesday, I listened carefully to the rationale given for the statutory exemption for tobacco products. If I heard correctly, the department's reasons were twofold. First, they felt the Tobacco Act was sufficient. Second, they didn't want to be taken to court by tobacco companies. I don't share their view that the Tobacco Act is sufficient. Also, I find it revealing of the continuing power of tobacco companies to bully the government into inaction that the department would even cite concerns about going to court.

Parliament made an understandable mistake in 1969 when it failed to include tobacco products in the first Hazardous Products Act. But there have been several subsequent attempts by parliamentarians to fix that mistake. On at least two occasions, the House of Commons and Senate have worked independently of government officials to include tobacco in the Hazardous Products Act. Once was in 1988 with Bill C-204, which had advertising restrictions, and the second time was in 2004 with Bill C-260, on flammability standards. Tellingly, both times, elected members worked across party lines to create a law within Parliament, not just use Parliament to pass a law drafted elsewhere.

Twice before, this House has worked together to insert tobacco products into consumer product safety law, where I think it properly belongs. I hope you will see the merits of doing so a third time.

Thank you.

[Pamela Fuselli, Executive Director, Safe Kids Canada]

Thank you.

Safe Kids Canada is the national injury prevention program of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, or SickKids, as it's known. As a knowledge broker, Safe Kids builds bridges between researchers, practitioners, policy-makers, and the public so that activities, messaging, and tools can be based on the best evidence available and make the best use of scarce resources.

Our vision is fewer injuries, healthier children, and a safer Canada. To achieve this vision, our mission is to lead and inspire a culture of safety across the country using a comprehensive and innovative approach. In pursuit of these goals, Safe Kids raises awareness, develops strategic partnerships, brokers knowledge, and advocates to prevent serious injuries among children, youth, and their families.

So why is children's injury prevention important to us? In our 2006 injury trend report, we found that on average 390 children and youth are killed every year, and another 25,500 are hospitalized for serious injuries in Canada. Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for those between the ages of 1 and 14 years.

Preventable injuries to children cost Canadians approximately $5 million per year. Many of those who survive are left with lifelong disabilities, increasing the impact of injuries on both individuals and families. What may be more surprising, which Marie Adèle referred to, is that the majority of these injuries are predictable and preventable. In addition, many effective interventions that are already known have not been widely implemented.

Injuries specifically from the use of consumer products are common, frequently serious, and sometimes fatal. Between 1990 and 2007, over 1.6 million children and youth visited emergency departments across Canada for the treatment of injuries. In recent years, almost half of those injuries involved consumer products such as furniture, toys, and window coverings.

There appears to be a disconnection between product safety realities and consumers' expectations. Recent survey results from Safe Kids Canada have shown that even though more than half of parents knew that injuries were the leading cause of death for children, and 70% of them believed injuries were preventable, the majority of Canadians believe that if a product is available for sale on the market in Canada, it is safe or has been tested for safety. Children are particularly vulnerable to product-related injuries due to their age, physical attributes, cognitive abilities, and developmental stage.

In Canada, a variety of consumer products have no regulations, particularly children's products such as bunk beds and trampolines. The current Hazardous Products Act, which is over 40 years old, is limited in scope and lacks the government's recall powers and the ability to be proactive.

While Safe Kids Canada acknowledges that the consumer product landscape is complex and global, there is the ability to renew and modernize current legislation to address these challenges. This is an essential component of a comprehensive approach to injury prevention. The Canadian consumer product safety legislation is a positive step forward, as its three main principles--active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response--enhance consumer product safety through the renewal and modernization of Canadian legislation. It is proactive and seeks to address issues before they happen.

The active prevention pillar of Bill C-6 outlines a new general prohibition against the manufacture, importation, advertisement, and sale of consumer products that are, or are likely to, pose an unreasonable danger to the health and safety of the public. An important component in this pillar is the inclusion of “manufacture”, as previous bans under the Hazardous Products Act only prohibited importation, advertisement, and sale. This puts the onus on industry to develop and keep in mind the target audience they have for their product when they're designing it.

Injury surveillance systems need to be enhanced to include the ability to monitor product interactions and outcomes, including tracking injury, product data, and product use. The targeted oversight pillar in Bill C-6 gives the government authority to require industry to report health and safety issues concerning their products. It also requires companies to conduct safety tests and be responsible for the products that are brought into Canada.

Investments are required for response and enforcement through increased inspectors. The rapid response pillar of Bill C-6 gives the government authority to issue mandatory recalls of dangerous products. Currently under the Hazardous Products Act, the government can only issue public advisories or warnings, and it relies on industry to voluntarily recall a dangerous product. This makes the process long, resulting in delays in removing dangerous products.

Safe Kids Canada would also like to see increased public access to consumer product safety information through effective communication strategies. Since 2003 Safe Kids has worked with the federal government on legislative renewal to strengthen consumer product safety legislation and ensure that products available for sale in Canada are safe. We've participated in consultations along with other organizations and support enhancing the consumer product safety program's capacity for injury surveillance, reporting, and consumer education.

Safe Kids Canada has partnered with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency extensively on various injury-related issues, including consumer product safety. We have participated in consultations like the baby bath seats, and in partnership with Health Canada we communicate important information to professionals and the public. In addition, as Safe Kids Canada's executive director, I am the co-director of the Canadian hospitals injury reporting and prevention program, or CHIRPP, as it is well known, and I do that at the site located at Sick Kids.

As we have also heard, countries like the United States and the European Union have passed new consumer product safety legislation, and Bill C-6 would bring Canada in line with these global changes.

The ban on wheeled baby walkers is one of the best examples of why new legislation is required. For many years, over 10 in fact, major distributors in Canada voluntarily stopped selling wheeled baby walkers. Regardless of this, the product continued to be sold at second-hand stores, on street corners, through garage sales, and was handed down to friends and family.

For one of our campaigns, Safe Kids Week, in 2003, we launched a major national media campaign to raise awareness of the dangers associated with baby walkers. This campaign's message, to wipe out walkers, supported Health Canada's efforts to ban the sale, importation, and advertisement of baby walkers. With nearly 300 parents, doctors, and public health professionals participating in the advocacy campaign, Health Canada was able to make Canada the first country, and currently the only country in the world, to ban baby walkers.

Even with the industry challenge that was upheld, in 2007 the government concluded that wheeled baby walkers pose an unreasonable risk of injury and death. If the provisions in Bill C-6 had been in place this dangerous product would have been removed from the Canadian marketplace years before it actually was.

In another case, the case of yo-yo balls, Health Canada issued two public advisories to warn parents of the dangers of the yo-yo ball and sought voluntary compliance from suppliers and manufacturers, and importers and retailers, to not make these products available. Unfortunately, this approach did little to deter the toys from being found in stores and continuing to make their way into the hands of children. At least 20 cases of near-miss strangulation from yo-yo balls were reported to Health Canada. This did not account for the many incidents that occurred but are not reported. A number of countries, including France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Brazil, banned the toy. Quickly thereafter, Health Canada issued a ban on this product and sent a clear message that this toy should not be imported, advertised, or sold in Canada. Again, recall powers would have allowed Health Canada to remove this product.

There are more recent examples, like magnets, that have followed a similar process.

The complex supply chain for these types of products, many of which are manufactured overseas and distributed through numerous channels, makes voluntary banning even more difficult and ineffective.

While current legislation prohibits the advertising, sale, and importation of dangerous products such as wheeled baby walkers and yo-yo balls, there are other products on the market that still require regulation in the interest of child and youth safety, such as infant bath seats, which have been associated with unintentional drowning and provide parents with a false sense of security.

Examples of product regulations that have led to injury reduction include childproof lighters, fire-resistant clothing, blind cords, and product packaging.

Every year Safe Kids Canada, in partnership with communities across Canada, launches a national public awareness campaign focused on a particular injury issue. On May 25 of this year we will launch this year's campaign with a focus on consumer product safety.

The campaign messages, activities, and tools are based on best practices, and over 600 partners will be distributing valuable information to parents and caregivers about how to purchase, assess, and report issues with products, conducting activities like unsafe product roundup events, as well as encouraging partners to write letters urging the new consumer product safety legislation to be passed. In addition, Safe Kids Canada has worked with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency on a CHIRPP report , Child and Youth Injury in Review - 2009 Edition Spotlight on Consumer Product Safety, which will be released during this week.

Unintentional injury remains the leading cause of death to Canadian children. In fact, it's a leading cause of death worldwide, as reported in the recent WHO/UNICEF report released in December 2008.

Bill C-6 will provide an important foundation upon which products brought into Canada will be measured. Safe Kids Canada, together with our partners in injury prevention, has called for a national injury prevention strategy that would include leadership, policy coordination, research, surveillance, and public information and education. Renewals of existing product safety legislation would be in keeping with the policy coordination pillar of the strategy. Research and surveillance are also needed across injury problems, including on product-related injuries. Public education is another pillar of the strategy that applies to product safety.

Safe Kids Canada's goal is to keep Canadian children healthy, active, and safe. Product safety is in everyone's best interest, and everyone has a role to play—Canadians, industry, and government.

Thank you.

[Marie Adèle Davis, Executive Director, Canadian Paediatric Society]

A voluntary professional organization, the CPS represents more than 2,700 pediatricians, pediatric subspecialists, pediatric residents, and other people who work with and care for children and youth.

We are governed by an elected board of directors representing each province and territory. CPS members are committed to working together to advance the health and well-being of children and youth by nurturing excellence in health care, advocacy--which is why I am here today--education, research, and support of its membership.

We accomplish this mission in three ways. First, professional education ensures that those who care for children and youth have access to evidence-based research and clinical guidelines to provide the highest quality of health care to children and youth in Canada. Specifically around injury prevention, just to show you our dedication to this issue, at our upcoming annual conference to be held here in late June--and you're all welcome to come--we have at least two sessions on preventing injury, including one specifically concentrating on product safety for children under five. Pediatricians want to know what they can do to protect kids.

Second, we accomplish our mission through public education, providing parents and other caregivers with up-to-date information on disease prevention, health promotion, and injury prevention to support them in caring for their children and youth. Our parent website, Caring for Kids, for example, has over 150,000 visits per month. We also have an electronic parent newsletter, as well as a Facebook page. And as I will say later in my presentation, we would look forward to working with Health Canada and the Government of Canada to get the word out to both health care professionals and parents about Bill C-6.

Last, we accomplish our mission through advocacy. We want to work with governments to support legislative programs that protect children and youth from harm and promote healthy development. We are very active on the injury prevention front, especially at the provincial and territorial level. Injury prevention has been central to the mission of the Canadian Paediatric Society since its inception in 1922. However, even though many of us--CPS and Safe Kids, to name two--have been advocating for a national approach to prevent injury, we have a long way to go. As many of you know, the recent World Health Organization report entitled World report on child injury prevention gives a very disturbing picture of how many children and youth die needlessly or are injured every year. And this is something that is 100% preventable.

While Canada has made significant strides in reducing unintentional childhood mortalities and injury in recent years, we should not be smug about our progress, as the OECD still ranks us a dismal 22nd out of 29 developed countries in the prevention of such injury. We need to do more as a nation.

Therefore, the Canadian Paediatric Society welcomes the introduction of Bill C-6, as we strongly believe it will protect children and youth from injury. As just stated, we have long advocated for a Canadian injury prevention strategy. While Bill C-6 does not answer all the needs that would be met through the establishment of such a strategy--so we will continue to advocate for it--it is a vital component of what we envisioned: the federal government taking a leadership role within its powers to protect Canada's youngest citizens.

Perhaps one of the most useful roles I can play today is to tell you what the Canadian Paediatric Society has learned about product safety over the past few years. We have a joint program with the Public Health Agency of Canada, named the Canadian pediatric surveillance program, where every month we ask every pediatrician in Canada whether they have seen a child with a rare childhood condition or injury. In the last five years we have had the opportunity to study three injuries caused by commonly used infant products: wheeled baby walkers, which thankfully are now banned; infant bath seats; and magnets in toys.

So what did we learn? In light of the time available, I'm just going to speak about baby walkers and magnets today.

In the case of baby walkers, which we looked at in 2002, a voluntary ban had been in place for years on wheeled baby walkers, but children were still suffering injuries. We asked every pediatrician if they had seen an injury caused by a baby walker within the last 12 months. Eighty-four pediatricians had reported seeing a child with an injury they could remember, so it was serious enough that they could remember it. They reported seeing a total of 132 injured kids. Given that there is absolutely no development benefit to infants from wheeled baby walkers, one really must ask oneself, why did the product continue to be available in Canada?

When Health Canada righty initiated the process for a complete ban, one of the importers objected. This led to a long and costly review process, not only for government but the actual health care professionals who took their time to prepare for the hearings and to give up a day of clinical care to come to Ottawa and present. And at the actual hearings, the company that had asked for a review actually did not even bother to appear. So all of the witnesses in front of the review panel were organizations, like the Canadian Paediatric Society, that agreed with the complete ban.

What we would look forward to is the inclusion of the new general prohibition in Bill C-6, so the Minister of Health can now quickly act to remove dangerous products from the marketplace.

Turning to magnets ingested by children, when the CPS first started to hear from our members about their concern regarding the ingestion of small magnets, we were able to work with both Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to determine what pediatricians were seeing in their practices. Thirty-nine of the respondents to our survey were not even aware of the risk to children and youth--well, hopefully youth aren't swallowing them--from the magnets. There were 19 reported cases where children had swallowed the magnets, including a case of a perforated bowel, which is a very serious medical condition.

The information collected through this survey allowed us to better inform health care providers and the public about the risk of these toys and completely complemented the work of Health Canada and their risk communication efforts.

For CPS, one of the advantages of Bill C-6 is the mandatory reporting provision by the manufacturers. As Health Canada learns of risk associated with products used by children and youth, we can work together with them and with partners, such as Safe Kids, to get the word out quickly to health care providers and, through them, to the parents they serve.

Pediatricians are very committed to something we call anticipatory guidance--providing parents with the information they need to do the best they can. A large portion of the anticipatory guidance we encourage our member to do is around injury prevention. The more information child and youth health professionals have that they can share with families or that we can include in our public education pamphlets and handouts and on our web, the better. By providing very current evidence-based information, we can protect our kids from senseless injury.

Allow me to share with you another incident that occurred during the last six years. It demonstrates the importance of Bill C-6, specifically clauses 9 and 10.

As I'm sure you are aware, the CPS recommends that babies sleep on their back. We discovered that a product was being sold at a major Canadian retailer claiming to position the child for sleep in the position recommended by the Canadian Paediatric Society. The problem with that is that if you actually go and read our statement on safe sleep, it specifically says there is no need for any product or cushions to keep the baby on his or her back. In fact, we state that the crib should be free of all pillows, toys, etc.

At that point in time, we had little recourse to change the packaging, other than to file a complaint with the company, inform the retailer of the misleading claim, and then hope they would listen to us. With the new provision in Bill C-6, we can contact Health Canada, people with whom we share our value of protecting children and youth, and allow them to work with us to ensure that products are not being marketed to parents under false pretense.

In closing, we would like to urge that Bill C-6 be passed into law as soon as possible. The Canadian Paediatric Society looks forward to working with Health Canada to inform physicians of the new legislation to encourage them to actively report incidents due to a consumer product. Now there will be even more incentive for them to do so, because they will feel that something can happen quickly to protect the kids they serve. We look forward to using our channels to inform and educate parents of the enhancements to the safety of products intended for use by their children and youth.

I would also hope that as part of the action plan, as it's considered and finalized, there are funds to support Canadian surveillance to examine product safety for children and youth, as well as funds to support parents to obtain replacements for recalled essential equipment, such as cribs. We would hate to have a parent respond immediately to the recall and then put their child in an unsafe sleeping position. So we need to make sure we support parents in that way.

Thank you. Merci.

[Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst, National Public Issues Office, Canadian Cancer Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Rob Cunningham. I'm a lawyer and Senior Policy Analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society.

I'm a lawyer specializing in tobacco legislation, and I have been involved in tobacco control for more than 20 years. Before turning to Bill C-6, I want to note with appreciation the motion unanimously adopted earlier today by the House of Commons urging action on tobacco contraband. Thank you to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis for sponsoring the motion, and to all parties for their support.

The Canadian Cancer Society recommends that Bill C-6 be amended to remove the permanent exclusion for tobacco products. The proposed amendment is short and simple but very important. Tobacco products cause more damage to public health than any other consumer product, killing 37,000 Canadians per year. It makes no sense that Bill C-6, in subclause 4(2), would permanently exclude tobacco products under virtually all circumstances from any of the bill's provisions.

I say respectfully that the current approach to tobacco in the bill is incoherent. Perhaps I could invite members to turn to our written brief circulated to you. In tab 1 you see schedule 1 of the bill. This schedule lists products for which there are separate statutes that regulate those products and are thus exempt from the bill. This includes explosives, cosmetics, prescription drugs, drugs, food, pesticides, and so on. However, clause 36 of the bill would allow a regulation to amend the schedule so that all or part of the act could apply to one of these products listed here--explosives or pesticides--should the need arise, should it be advisable in the public interest.

If you turn to tab 2, tobacco, the most damaging consumer product, is treated differently. You see highlighted there in subclause 4(2) a permanent exclusion that can never be modified by regulation. Our recommendation is to move the tobacco exemption from subclause 4(2) and put it in schedule 1 so it is treated similar to all of the other products for which there are separate statutes that regulate them.

I was present Tuesday for the testimony of officials concerning the tobacco provision in the bill. I listened carefully, but no persuasive reason against the amendment was presented, in my view. It is the case that the Tobacco Act was the subject of a constitutional challenge and was upheld as fully constitutional. But that is also true for some other products and statues in schedule 1. For example, the Food and Drugs Act was upheld as constitutional, as was the firearms legislation.

For the tobacco amendment, there is no legal or constitutional impediment to making the amendment. In making this statement, as a lawyer I represented the Canadian Cancer Society for 10 years as co-counsel in the intervention in court to successfully defend the constitutionality of the Tobacco Act, including before the Supreme Court of Canada. We appeared in court alongside the federal government.

It is the case that with the proposed amendment the wording for tobacco in the schedule will be different from other items listed, but that is fine in order to deal with the cigarette ignition propensity issue. Parliament can do that and should do that. Doing so would not undermine the schedule or the act. Doing so would in fact strengthen the potential ability of the act to protect Canadians.

On Tuesday, Assistant Deputy Minister Paul Glover explained that the objectives of the bill are active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response. These objectives are certainly relevant in the context of tobacco. The government should have the flexibility to deal with the tobacco epidemic in a rapid manner, should the need arise and the Tobacco Act be inadequate. There would be an escape valve available to protect the public interest.

On the other hand, maintaining the permanent exemption for tobacco products currently in subclause 4(2) would provide undesirable and unnecessary protection for the tobacco industry. There is no reason why pesticides, explosives, motor vehicles, cosmetics, and so on should receive more potential regulatory oversight than tobacco products.

During the second reading debate, Dr. Bennett, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, and Mr. Thibault expressed support for our proposed amendment on tobacco. We are grateful. We urge all members of the committee to similarly support this amendment.

Thank you.

[Claire Checkland]

Thank you very much.

As I mentioned, I'm Claire Checkland. I'm with the Canadian Cancer Society's public issues office here in Ottawa. I work on environmental and occupational exposure to carcinogens.

Thank you all so much for inviting us to present to this committee. We're very much looking forward to hearing more about this bill as it proceeds and to expressing to you our particular interests in this bill.

The Canadian Cancer Society is supportive of Bill C-6, and we're particularly pleased about its improved abilities to prevent unsafe products from entering our markets and the government's increased power to recall unsafe products. Of particular interest to the Canadian Cancer Society is the fact that this bill intends to address chronic health effects relating to consumer products as well as acute health effects.

I listened with interest on Tuesday as representatives from Health Canada described this bill, the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Early on in their presentation, a representative from Health Canada highlighted that one of the general prohibitions from this bill is that no manufacturer or importer shall manufacture, import, advertise, or sell a consumer product that is dangerous to human health or safety. We all know, though, that there are many products on the market that pose a risk to human health and safety. We all have them in our own homes. And these products will continue to be on the market after this bill is passed.

Some products inherently pose a risk to human health and safety. Many of these products are currently dealt with by existing regulations, the consumer chemicals and containers regulations, from 2001. These regulations ensure that chemical products that pose an acute health risk to consumers are labelled so that consumers are warned of the acute risks associated with the use of the products and are informed of how to use those products as safely as possible. We see these acute health warning symbols on products on the market today, for example the skull and crossbones or the explosives symbol.

Leading up to the consumer chemicals and containers regulations being updated in 2001, extensive discussions occurred about the need for a consumer product labelling system for chronic health risks associated with products. Some chronic health risks that were considered include cancer risks or reproductive toxicity. The idea was that a chronic health risk labelling system could parallel the system that was being updated for acute health risks.

At this time, though, work was ongoing towards the implementation of a worldwide chronic and acute risk labelling system called the globally harmonized system, or GHS. It was decided that for chronic health warnings, we would wait for the GHS.

The Canadian Cancer Society proposes that we not continue to wait for the implementation of the GHS, for which we have already waited more than 10 years, as Bill C-6 poses an opportunity to move forward with chronic health risk labelling now. This could easily be done so that it would comply with and complement Canada's future implementation of the globally harmonized system.

On Tuesday, there were several references to the status of consumer legislation internationally. Several times, both the U.S.A. and the European Union were mentioned. What was not mentioned, however, is that in December, 2008 the European Union passed legislation exacting timelines for the implementation of chronic health risk labelling on consumer products. The European Union continues to corner an increasing share of the market for consumers who want to ensure safety of products that they purchase.

It is also important to mention that while we support the implementation of the GHS, we also recognize its limitations. In Canada, the globally harmonized system will appear only on consumer chemicals and will not appear on a multitude of other products, such as textiles, electronics, or children's toys. Bill C-6, however, would apply to all of those categories and more.

It probably goes without saying that the Canadian Cancer Society, first and foremost, calls for the elimination of cancer-causing substances in products. When elimination is not possible and a carcinogen remains in a product, we call for that substance, or those substances, to be identified through the presence of a hazard symbol as well as a clearly visible statement about the presence of the substance of concern. This statement must be visible to the consumer at point of sale.

The Canadian Cancer Society supports the principle of community right to know and asserts that Canadians have the right to be made aware of harmful substances in their food and consumer products, the air quality in their communities, as well as the health risks found in their workplaces. Community right to know empowers us all to make informed decisions, take action to improve our living conditions, and maintain our personal health and well-being. It enables us to act as informed consumers.

Thank you.

[Robert Ianiro]

We definitely meet with the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs very regularly. Our area of the department has had a very collaborative and great working relationship with the fire chiefs for a number of years. We meet with them at least once a year when they come for the government relations week and on an ongoing basis on some of our initiatives. We are working with them right now on an information and education program for minors in the sale of lighters and matches at retail locations, for example. So we do have a great working relationship with CAFC.

I want to add one other point to your comment around dollar stores and electrical cords. I think you're probably making reference to a lot of issues in fire and shock hazards that come with what in a lot of cases are low-gauge wire, wire that doesn't meet requirements.

We're finding in a lot of these cases that these products appear to be certified but they're not. These types of products would be certified by ULC, the Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, or UL in the United States. They are using counterfeit marks.

Currently under the Hazardous Products Act, we have no ability or no authority to do anything, but under Bill C-6, clauses 9 and 10 do afford the minister with the ability to take action on false and misleading claims, including counterfeit marks, in relation to health and safety. We're not interested in Prada shoes and intellectual property rights violations, but anything relating to health and safety is captured under this bill.

[Paul Glover]

The very brief answer is that we do not anticipate that, but we have to anticipate that it might come up as we look at any particular issue. In the general design it is clear what the federal role is with respect to borders, importation, national standards, but then there are also local levels of government and different jurisdictions. We would want to make sure that we consult, collaborate, and cooperate with them as we move forward, perhaps in response to specific issues.

There is a clear federal role that Bill C-6 does enact for us to make sure that there is no duplication. But when dealing with any one particular issue, different jurisdictions sometimes have different strategies. We would want to work with them to make sure we're not setting conflicting directions for the industry and for consumers in a manner that would create confusion.