Evidence of meeting #31 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was privacy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health
The minister would certainly be accountable for any intervention in such a situation.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Nicolas Dufour Bloc Repentigny, QC
Very well. Thank you very much.
Again with regard to the preamble of the bill, there is an overall view of consumer products and the environment. One can read the following:
[...] whereas the Parliament recognizes that, given the impact activities with respect to consumer products may have on the environment, there is a need to create a regulatory system regarding consumer products that is complementary to the regulatory system regarding the environment;
And yet, this is something that can only be found in Section 16 and 17. Therefore, the Fertilizers Act and Seeds Act are excluded from the bill. And yet this bill contains a direct link with the environment. It is also a matter of disclosing personal information.
Does the government intend to develop environmental requirements as part of the regulations?
11:55 a.m.
Director, Consumer Product Safety Bureau, Department of Health
There are a couple of threads to that question, first and foremost with regard to the complementarity between health and safety in Bill C-36 and environmental legislation. We're dealing with health and safety relating to consumer products. CEPA really is the statute in place to deal with environmental concerns. They do have the ability to deal with both environmental and health issues if a substance is deemed to be toxic under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA. The reason we are making reference in the preamble and in other places in the bill, such as clause 16, is for the simple fact that through our work and through the work of other departments, you will often come across information or situations that should or could lead to actions under other statutes.
For example, Ms. Mentzelopoulos described the bisphenol A prohibition that was put under the Hazardous Products Act and will be carried over to Bill C-36. One of the issues that came up through our analysis was whether there were any concerns to the environment and potential release of bisphenol A into groundwater or through the effluent out of manufacturing. Just this past weekend, Environment Canada announced some action in that area. So that's a concrete example of why we're making reference to the environment and giving ourselves a certain degree of flexibility, so that there could be sharing of that type of information to not only better protect the health and safety of Canadians but the environment, upon which, of course, our very life depends.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Nicolas Dufour Bloc Repentigny, QC
If I understand correctly, the objective is to actually facilitate relations with the other departments in order to better apply—
11:55 a.m.
Director, Consumer Product Safety Bureau, Department of Health
That is correct.
October 19th, 2010 / 11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think I would like to go back to my colleague Mr. Thibeault's sort of quest for a before-and-after example and take it into a specific product in a specific place and what would have happened before and what will happen now.
You didn't have quite enough time to really sort of follow through both sides of those examples.
11:55 a.m.
Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health
Do you mind if I continue to use the cadmium example?
11:55 a.m.
Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health
Okay, thank you.
Right now with cadmium we do have some regulations pertaining to the use of cadmium in surface coatings, ceramic glassware, but we do not have established in regulation an allowable limit or any restrictions on the presence of cadmium, for example, in children's jewellery.
With the Hazardous Products Act we really are required to stipulate in specific regulations that are targeted to particular uses or particular products. In order for us to have the basis to take enforcement action.... For example, having found this year the presence of cadmium in children's jewellery, the only way our inspectors can take action on that is if they have the basis in regulation.
We may proceed under the Hazardous Products Act to develop the regulations that would provide that basis for action. As you probably are aware, the minister released this morning a request that industry take a voluntary approach and avoid any products that have that or not use the substance.
In the context of the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, this legislation, it would be in particular the general prohibition that would allow us the parameter to take action. So if we knew, for example, that cadmium above a certain limit in a particular product—because it is likely to be mouthed or sucked or chewed by a young child—would or could pose a health problem and unreasonable danger, we could use the provision of the general prohibition as the basis for our inspectors to act very quickly and to move forward with a recall, whether it would be mandatory, which we would have the provisions for in the legislation, or voluntary, where we have a company that says yes, they recognize the problem and they move quickly to recall the product.
So it comes back to whether you have a very narrow product-specific focus, as we do now with the Hazardous Products Act, or the ability to take action when you've determined that in fact there is a danger to human health or safety more broadly.
Noon
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I'm sure that throughout your time you've had some good consultations with Canadian business. In general, are they describing this is going to be a positive step for them? What has been the feedback from Canadian business?
Noon
Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health
I would characterize the feedback generally as quite positive in the context, for example, of the general prohibition. The requirements that we are placing are requirements that already exist in large part. They are things that industry is aware of because of the results of decisions, for example, in liability cases that have been before the courts.
As I've said, we have an industry in Canada that largely values its reputation, wants to ensure it's providing safe products. The general prohibition really codifies those requirements and makes it transparent. It helps to build a level playing field.
In many respects, the provisions that we have in this legislation are already in place in other jurisdictions as well. So given the global nature of the marketplace, we have companies in Canada who are already subject to mandatory reporting provisions, for example, in the United States. So for many of the players in industry, they are familiar with the kinds of provisions, and if not the specific provision, they're already working to ensure they have safe products, and they appreciate the level playing ground.
Noon
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
You did talk earlier about having benefited from a relationship with the United States in terms of their legislation. I guess what I would like to understand a little bit better is do you have sort of an appropriate program system, databases? Does the U.S. have one? Are you developing one? Is it going to be shared? So talk a little bit about how we're going to appropriately track and monitor what's happening.
Noon
Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health
Thank you.
At the moment we have a system in place for tracking consumer complaints, and I believe it's a robust system. We have to build on that system, because for mandatory reporting we expect we will be receiving quite voluminous raw data. Whenever there is a serious incident, there will be a requirement upon industry to provide a report. We're currently building that system. We have a lot to learn—and we are learning it—from the United States; they've already implemented their system. We have worked closely with them and studied how it has gone for them, and all of that is feeding into the design of our own system.
We're also consulting. We first issued a kind of consultation paper on what that parameters would be for the mandatory reporting system; it is on our website now. We've been using it as a basis for a quite considerable discussion that Mr. Ianiro has had with various industry players. We're starting to receive comments on it. We were asked, actually, to extend the comment period and have done so. It lays out what we would expect our regulatees to report on and starts to define the parameters. Once the consultation period closes, this will all feed into the design of the system.
Did you want to add anything, Robert?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Consumer Product Safety Bureau, Department of Health
The only thing I would add is specifically on the question of how we're liaising with the U.S. and, going forward, how we would share information. In fact, for both our consumer incident reporting form, which is available on our website in a smart, fillable PDF form, as well as the analogous form for consumer reports of incidents, we've looked at other jurisdictions, in particular the U.S., and have tried to harmonize those forms as much as possible. And we have engaged in discussions with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Down the road, we would hope that a report in the U.S. would be equivalent—almost the same form, with the same fields—to what would be submitted in Canada.
All of that work is ongoing, and I would say already there is a great degree of harmonization.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Thank you.
I'm sorry to be a bit of a pest, but I want to revisit clauses 15 to 17.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I've been called worse; don't worry.
I looked at the Library of Parliament summary on the history of this section and at Senator Banks' amendment. It talks about essentially providing the same kind of protection to personal information that you provide to corporations or businesses. Why is it so difficult for you to draft it in a way that provides the same protection? When you first share it with a person, or a government in the position of having an obligation for the protection of health and the like, why couldn't you have the same prohibition that it not go public? And if it does go public, Banks' amendment provided you at least six months to notify the person, not just one day, because you had no agreements with the individual.
I'm wondering why it is that you can't provide that protection. The scenario that you paint, Mr. Ianiro, isn't the only scenario wherein you might be sharing information about people. It's not just a six-year-old child who has some problem and you simply don't give their address or name and just share the information. The scenarios could be extremely difficult and complicated.
I'm not satisfied that Banks' amendments are unreasonable, and if you can't satisfy me, we may end up introducing those amendments here.
When you came to brief me, I hadn't looked at the provisions. I simply thought that what you were saying was eminently reasonable. Now I look at the provisions and I look at what he was seeking, and it's not unreasonable. He's not preventing you from sharing information; he is simply saying to you, please give them the same protection: that first you share the information, if it's not that serious, with the proviso that it not be made public, as you do in clause 16, and then, if you have to share it, you have not just one day but six months to notify the person.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Mr. Dosanjh, your time is running out. I think you want an answer, right?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
No, I just wanted to make sure that they understood that I'm extremely concerned about this.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Legal Services Unit, Department of Health
Let me reinforce the response, Madam Chair, that we provided to Dr. Duncan.
Individuals do have greater protections than businesses, in fact. The government's Privacy Act continues to apply, and the protections granted to individuals with respect to their personal information continue to apply. This does not override the Privacy Act. It does, however—
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Yes, it does, constitutionally, when you pass a law subsequent to a previous law, unless you say privacy law impacts all laws.