Health Committee on May 5th, 2009

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

We're playing catch-up.

[Paul Glover]

--at least modernize up, and in some instances get a little bit ahead.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

When you compare us to our largest trading partner, the U.S., what's their legislation like on this?

[Paul Glover]

They are moving through making a number of rules, and this would allow us to be very compatible with them. There are some things the U.S. is looking at with respect to mandatory toy testing and other things that we are watching very closely as we move forward.

Our attempt--again, because of the benefits of international harmonization, as long as it's harmonizing up--would be to continue to work with them to make sure that we have compatible legislation and the ability to exchange information. They're a much larger market. The signals they see on product problems, because of the numbers in their marketplace, are very helpful to us.

So we want to see a continued exchange of information. If there are small signals in a large population, they would catch them and share that with us. We could move very quickly to do joint recalls and joint corrective measures with industry.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I notice in clause 8 there's the term “danger to human health or safety”. What criteria would be used to determine that?

[Paul Glover]

I'll turn to my colleagues to answer that.

[Robert Ianiro]

There are internationally recognized and internationally validated hazard identification and hazard assessment types of methodologies. The European Union, as Mr. Glover has mentioned, already has in place what is referred to as a general product safety directive. They rely on a variety of standards and internationally recognized approaches to identify hazards and mitigate those hazards. They go through an entire step-wise approach to assessing those risks.

There is a lot of that type of intelligence and that type of information out there that gives great guidance for industry to determine what would constitute that danger to human health and safety. Of course, the types of requirements that we have stipulated already in our regulations would also be a signal.

That type of science and those standards are continually being assessed and revised. New ones are being implemented. All of these will be the foundation on which industry can rely to get an idea of what would constitute due diligence.

In most cases, responsible industry is carrying out a lot of these types of approaches through their product design, through their ongoing quality control and quality assurance measures. So this is obviously not a novel approach. The European Union, in fact, introduced its first directive on general product safety in 1992, and modified it in 2001. These types of concepts and how to respect them are well established.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

What are those international standards that you referred to?

[Robert Ianiro]

There are a variety of international standards bodies. There are also domestic standards bodies. For example, we will reference through incorporation into a variety of our regulations, be it Canadian Standards Association regulations...for example, every hockey helmet that is sold in Canada has to meet a CSA standard.

There are European equivalents to the CSA. There is Underwriters Laboratories, which does a lot of standards on electrical products. They have a Canadian arm and an American arm. There is a U.S. standards body known as ASTM.

There is a wide range of standards bodies. I also want to add and underline the fact that in recent years there has been a real push towards improved international harmonization of standards through the international standards organization ISO, not only to help, obviously, with trade, but to have the same level of protection throughout all of the different markets.

So there has been a real push. A lot of the big markets, the U.S., EU, Canada, and Australia, are getting together and working collectively on those standards. Toys are actually one where there is quite a bit of work under way internationally, to deal with, for example, the magnet issue. We have toy regulations. This was an unregulated hazard. This was a hazard that no jurisdiction in the world had envisioned and no standard in the world had covered at that point in time. That is an example of how the standards will evolve to catch up to those types of dangers that are identified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Would the committee mind if I just asked one question? Would that be okay with the committee? I hate to intercede; we are going on to Dr. Carrie shortly.

I was at the brain injury presentation, and I was very interested in what you had to say about regulations for helmets and CSA. I was talking to some of those people, and I know that there is a private member's bill with Dr. Fry, talking about safe helmets and things like that.

You said that every helmet in Canada was CSA approved. I am wondering, what does that mean? The brain injury people had a concern that the helmets being sold weren't up to standard. Could you please clarify that for me?

[Robert Ianiro]

Just to be clear, the current requirements under the Hazardous Products Act are specifically for hockey helmets.

The private member's bill that Hedy Fry put forward speaks to a CSA standard that was just recently finalized. In fact it was a standard that Health Canada was on the technical committee to help develop. It is currently going through an accreditation process with the Standards Council of Canada. This standard covers ski and snowboard helmets.

The CSA standard that has been recently finalized will actually introduce the strictest requirements of any standard in the world for ski and snowboard helmets. It takes into account a lower level of G-force and multiple impacts in any one place. It blows any other standard currently on the market...and provides a greater level of protection.

In fact we have recently announced a consultation with our stakeholders with the recommendation that we actually move forward in requiring the standard in a mandatory fashion under the Hazardous Products Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I promised the group I would speak to the minister, and I did. Dr. Bennett was at that same presentation. She was very concerned and very amenable. So thank you for answering that question.

We'll now go to Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I wanted to talk a little bit about the powers of this new legislation. In any way do they encroach on the provincial and territorial jurisdictions? Are there going to be things that have to be worked out over a regulation process or anything along those lines with the provinces and territories?

[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.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

So there are mechanisms for conversations and discussions on that point.

[Paul Glover]

Again, while I say we don't anticipate, we kind of anticipate. I know that sounds contradictory, but....

We do believe there is a clear federal role. We do have provincial-territorial committees we work through to make sure, if there are issues that need to be discussed and worked through, we can anticipate those and respect the federal and provincial powers and come up with a strategy that is clear for consumers and for the industries in those areas.

[Robert Ianiro]

I may add a couple of key points.

To date we really haven't heard from any of the provinces or territories outlining any concerns and issues they have with the bill. I think it is also important to underline that one key aspect or one key action is covered solely under federal jurisdiction, and that is importation. Of course, that's one of the key areas you want to focus your activities on, and that falls squarely to the federal government.

In the past we have worked quite closely with many of the provincial authorities--for example, the Electrical Safety Authority in Ontario. We've had no issues in the past, and we do not foresee any issues going forward, in working with a variety of provincial and territorial governments that are, of course, interested in protecting their citizens as much as we are.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

That brings me to the next question about internationally. We are seeing a lot of dollar store products. I remember on the industry committee there were issues with extension cords, for example, that were being imported into these stores. Sometimes they will even have counterfeit safety stickers on them.

Are we able to send inspectors overseas too? Is there anything international agreements-wise that allows our inspectors to go to countries where we get a lot of products coming into Canada? Is there a mechanism there?

[Paul Glover]

We do have reciprocal agreements with many countries. We would not necessarily send inspectors there, but would ask them to provide information. We are working with other parties to say, well, rather than all of us setting up offices in a particular country, how would we work together and share that information?

So there is a great deal of international collaboration and cooperation. As part of our active prevention, we are also trying to reach out to those different countries to make sure as they are manufacturing they understand what Canada's expectations are when they're selling into the Canadian marketplace. We need to make sure that the small and medium-sized enterprises understand as importers or when dealing with importers what they need to be cognizant of as they move forward.

So there is quite a comprehensive plan to respond to that particular issue that's based on a lot of international cooperation.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

On that same theme, we had our friends the fire chiefs come by last week, and they talked about consultation and rapport with the government on different products. Again, I bring it back to some of these things that are seen in dollar stores occasionally that are really poor quality.

Do you have open dialogue with organizations like the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs in terms of how they feel about this bill? Are they supportive?

[Paul Glover]

I will ask my colleague Robert Ianiro, who meets directly with a lot of these groups on a regular basis, to expand further, but suffice to say that we have been talking with them. They are supportive in general of what we are doing, and have been helpful in terms of ideas we've tried to incorporate as we move forward with this and other stakeholders.

I will turn it over to Robert Ianiro.

[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 other piece, without targeting any particular chain, is that if we see repeat offenders in terms of problems, that is contemplated in the administrative monetary penalties. So if this is the first time, there's an understanding, we want to work with you. But if you repeat, then the fines that we would impose, the administrative monetary penalties, will escalate as we move forward as a further deterrent in this sort of situation.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much for clarifying.

And we shouldn't target dollar stores. My kids love them very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much.

I want to thank the witnesses. We have a few moments left, but we have some committee business. I want to thank you for your very insightful presentation today.

We're going to suspend. We're going in camera for a few minutes to talk about committee business, so I would ask anybody in the room who is not part of the committee to please excuse themselves.

Again, thank you so much. It was a great presentation.

[Proceedings continue in camera]