Evidence of meeting #32 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-36.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Paul Glover  Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Robert Simonds  President, Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs
Michel Arnold  Executive Director, Option consommateurs
Pamela Fuselli  Executive Director, Safe Kids Canada
John Walter  Executive Director, Standards Council of Canada
Anu Bose  Head, Ottawa Office, Option consommateurs

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

I ask all members of the committee to please be seated so we can begin.

We want to welcome our minister, Leona Aglukkaq, to the committee this morning. We're just delighted that she could join us. In our first hour the minister will make her presentation. Then we'll go into two rounds of questions.

As you remember, when a minister is present the rounds are different. The Liberals will have 15 minutes, the Bloc 10, the NDP 10, and the Conservatives 10, for questions and answers during that time.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 7, 2010, today we will be examining Bill C-36, an act respecting the safety of consumer products.

Again I welcome you, Minister. We're very excited about your being here today, and look forward to your presentation.

Thank you.

11:05 a.m.

Nunavut Nunavut

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of Health

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for inviting me back to this committee today to discuss Bill C-36, the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

This is the second time this bill has been before this committee, and I know that my colleagues in this room are all very familiar with the details of the bill. I hope I can count on the support of all parties to get the legislation passed as quickly as possible.

We know that the previous bill received unanimous support in the House. I hope your support of this bill will continue, followed by quick approval in the Senate. In my view, Canadians should not have to wait.

Since the bill was last before the committee, we've had the opportunity to include details that offer more clarification to certain sections of the legislation. For example, the definition of “storage” has been added to the proposed legislation. These changes do not compromise the spirit of the bill, nor do they lower the level of protection it would provide to Canadians.

In reviewing the transcripts from your meetings on Tuesday, I noted some time was spent on the subject of personal information. Our government is committed to the protection of personal information, and I want to spend a few minutes on this subject as a follow-up to the Tuesday discussions.

Concerns were raised that Bill C-36 gives more protection to business information than to personal information. This is not the case. Bill C-36 sets out the limited criteria under which personal information could be shared. In addition, the government respects the provisions of the Privacy Act. The act sets out very clear limits on the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. To make sure that the protections of the proposed act are appropriate, officials from my department have met proactively with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. After a full review of the bill, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner confirmed in writing that the protections for personal information in the proposed act are appropriate and cause no concern. I would be happy to table the correspondence I received from her office with this committee.

On Tuesday this committee discussed an amendment that was put forward in the Senate during consideration of the predecessor of Bill C-36. Implementing this amendment would result in cases of my department having to collect more personal information than necessary in order to do our work. As a result, legal obligations may be created that the department is unable to meet. I am confident that we have taken all the necessary precautions to protect personal information and to ensure that only those details that are relevant to the nature of the incident or the danger the product poses to health and safety need be collected.

This week I participated in a press conference to draw attention to a serious concern about the use of cadmium, a highly toxic product in toys and children's jewellery. It is being used in place of lead, the product once commonly used in such trinkets. Given that young children tend to put things in their mouths, this type of exposure to cadmium can cause vomiting, diarrhea, and over time can cause liver damage, but our appeal was limited to asking industry to voluntarily take action to stop using cadmium. This is a good example of why we need to pass this important piece of legislation.

Right now the Hazardous Products Act is used to regulate consumer products. The act applies to consumer products that are specifically prohibited or regulated by the act. This limits our ability to act, because most products on the market are unregulated. The 40-year-old legislation lacks the necessary tools to address today's challenges and doesn't permit us to be on the same footing with our trading partners. It must be replaced by modernized authorities to better address the potential consumer product hazards that are brought to our attention on a daily basis.

Using the cadmium example, if Bill C-36 had already been passed, the general prohibitions could have been used to proactively respond to this issue. I compare this to our present legislation, where if voluntary action were not possible, it could have taken up to two years to change the regulations. While the United States and the European Union have the ability to order the recall of such products, in Canada we are generally limited to negotiating and gaining cooperation from companies before products are pulled from store shelves on a voluntary basis.

We know that most industry players value their reputation. We also know and respect the investments they have made in safety and customer service. We want to support those in industry who value their reputation on safety and who make it a priority to ensure their customers have the information they need to make the right product choices. But in those few cases where it falls to government to take action to protect consumers, Bill C-36 would give us the authority to do so.

Over the last year, we have spoken to many parents, stakeholders, and industry representatives, and have met with colleagues from foreign governments. We have talked about the need to respond quickly and about our shared concern for the safety of consumer products—particularly in the case of children. We also discussed our shared goal of building an improved product safety regime that is targeted, efficient, and effective. In addition, we have also worked on improving our international partnerships.

Madam Chair, I believe we should take a fair, transparent, and comprehensive approach to product safety. The issue fundamentally is one of safety. It is also an issue of consumer expectation. I would like to thank the members of this committee for making this bill a priority and ensuring that it gets the attention it needs to quickly proceed to the report stage and third reading in the House. I sincerely hope you will agree it is time we passed this important piece of legislation into law.

I would also like to take the opportunity, before we go into questions, to thank our stakeholder groups here today for their ongoing support of this bill: Robert Simonds, president of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs; Michel Arnold, executive director, and Anu Bose from Options Consommateurs; Pamela Fuselli, executive director of Safe Kids Canada; and John Walter, executive director of the Standards Council of Canada.

Many other stakeholder groups have also provided support for this bill, such as the Consumers' Association of Canada, Environmental Defence, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, and the Canadian Pediatric Society. They are not speaking here today, but I would like to extend my thanks to them as well.

I welcome questions from the committee.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Minister Aglukkaq, for your presentation.

With the minister today from the Department of Health we have Athana Mentzelopoulos. She is from the Consumer Product Safety Directorate. And we have again with us Paul Glover, the assistant deputy minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch.

We will now begin with round one. To remind you, the Liberal side will have 15 minutes.

We begin with Dr. Duncan.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the minister.

Thank you for addressing clauses 15 to 17 in your presentation. I would appreciate it if that correspondence could be tabled. Thank you.

I'll just go through our challenges. Both Mr. Dosanjh and I really struggled with those clauses. Clause 15 says “without the consent of the individual”, and talks about a serious danger. We were told that they didn't want to address the two conditions. Clause 16 says without consent if there is an agreement to maintain confidentiality of information. Clause 17 says “without notifying the person beforehand, disclose confidential business information...that is a serious and imminent danger”.

We might ask that clause 15 be amended, or at least indicate that the Privacy Act would provide some protection for the individual. I understand what the minister has said, but we'd like to see that correspondence. Ms. Labelle said last week that this can be looked at.

Minister, you are calling on manufacturers and distributors to stop marketing children's products containing the toxic chemical cadmium. This is extremely important. As you have said, it can cause damage to the liver and kidneys if ingested, and also causes nausea and diarrhea. As Health Canada says, the science is here.

I'm wondering what the maximum acceptable concentration is for cadmium, and what levels are considered to be high.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Minister Aglukkaq.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU

Thank you.

Let me start with the first issue you raised related to personal information. As I stated in my opening comments to the committee, we proactively sought out the Privacy Commissioner's input into this legislation to protect the privacy information of individuals. I will be happy to share with the committee the letter we received from the Privacy Commissioner saying she's happy with the legislation and the provisions in this legislation that support privacy. I'll give that to you.

I would also like to say that the proposed amendment that was introduced in the Senate related to privacy issues basically goes beyond what we're asking for. The proposed amendment that was introduced by the senator said to collect more unnecessary information that we need to make an informed decision on an unsafe product. So they said to collect personal information, like the individual's age, address, social insurance number, date of birth--information that we do not need to make an informed decision on an unsafe product.

The issue here is the product. So that's a concern we're struggling with, in that the Privacy Commissioner is satisfied with what we've done here, but the proposed amendment goes beyond what we need in Health Canada to make an informed decision on an unsafe product.

On the acceptable level of cadmium, I'm going to refer that to the officials to respond.

Thank you.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Mr. Glover, would you like to respond to that?

11:15 a.m.

Paul Glover Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be pleased to respond.

On a safe level for cadmium, I would make three fairly basic points. First, there are already regulations for cadmium where we understand that it is a necessary ingredient in a product. So it is used in some paints, and there are specific levels that already exist for that in regulation and the risk there, and for glazed ceramics. However, for children's jewellery there is no safe level that we are aware of at this time. The science has not been done. We are working with other jurisdictions to look at that specific risk, what the hazard is, and what would be an acceptable level of cadmium present in children's jewellery, given the risk of how they would use the product and its ingestion.

We're kind of surprised that it's even showing up in children's jewellery, given that it doesn't need to be there.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Thank you.

The Hazardous Products Act limits the leachable cadmium content of paints and other surface coatings on toys and other products for use by a child. I believe it's limited to 1,000 milligrams per kilogram.

11:15 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health

Paul Glover

That's correct.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

How does this relate to the ISO 8124-3:2010--safety of toys, part 3, migration of certain elements?

11:15 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health

Paul Glover

The issue here is the level for both ceramics and surface coatings. The risk is flaking of its small particles, its dust. It tends to be an inhalation risk less than an ingestion risk, because toys are designed and our toy standards are such that they can't fit in a child's mouth. So with children's jewellery, we're worried that it often ends up in the child's mouth. They suck on it and there's a risk of ingestion. So the exposure route is different. That's why we feel uncomfortable using the surface coating standard for children's jewellery. It's very specific to the risk.

We're not alone and we won't try to answer this question alone. We're working actively with the U.S., the EU, and other jurisdictions, so if we're pushed to have to develop regulations on this, we will have a safe level.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Thank you.

The federal government has found levels of cadmium as high as 93% in some children's products. Can you explain what that means, please?

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Minister.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU

It's very simple. It means that the jewellery is almost 100% cadmium. That's what we're finding.

And in our view it's completely unnecessary, which is why we issued the warning to industry to voluntarily stop using cadmium. That's the only recourse we have, because we have 40-year-old outdated legislation, to respond quickly.

Thank you.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Thank you.

What can you tell us about children? Are we seeing children getting sick, and what data exists?

11:15 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health

Paul Glover

The short answer to that question is no, we're not seeing children getting sick. And there are two reasons for that. The first is that we don't have a provision for mandatory reporting in Bill C-36, so if there are incidents, there isn't a requirement for those to be disclosed to us, as a government, so that we could begin proactively to take action.

The second reason is our cyclical enforcement. We were actually worried about lead, and we were being very aggressive in our testing for lead, and we thought it would be prudent...because we were getting some intelligence from other international bodies that lead was being replaced by cadmium. So we're picking this up very early in its cycle. Two years ago we did not find cadmium present in children's jewellery. It's only in the last year that we've begun to see this. What we're seeing is a move away from the presence of lead to the presence of cadmium.

We're trying to address this issue before children get sick.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Thank you.

I believe the minister has said you'll be monitoring the marketplace in the months ahead. If things don't improve, then you will consider what further actions may be necessary to protect children, such as setting mandatory limits through the regulatory process. Is there a moral and political right to name the toys of concern?

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Minister.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU

Currently, in order to monitor the situation, as I stated in my opening remarks, that could take up to two years with the hazardous products legislation that we have. It's so outdated that we are not able to respond. The only thing we can do to protect the health and safety of Canadians is issue advisories. That's the authority we have.

A lot has changed in 40 years. In Canada we are trading more products and so on. It's going to take a long time to respond with the current legislation. Under Bill C-36, there would be mandatory reporting mechanisms in place. So if there were incidents of that nature, consumers as well as industry would have an obligation to report them, so we would have a better picture across the country of the incidents we would be seeing.

To date we have no systems of that nature. In Canada we find out about unsafe products, whether they be cribs or strollers, from the United States.

In my view, it's very embarrassing for Canada as a country that we have such outdated legislation that we rely on a different country to provide the information to us as to what is happening in Canada. Under the United States legislation there is a mandatory requirement for products being sold, and this is why it's so important.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Minister, I asked a very specific question. Do you have the moral and political right to name the toys of concern?

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU

Yesterday we listed the products that we saw. If you go to the Health Canada website....

We have an obligation to protect Canadians, but we don't have the legislation to do that.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Thank you, Minister.

May I ask a question on a different topic?

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

No. We are studying Bill C-36 today. It has to be on that topic.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Okay.

I'd like to turn it over to my colleague, Dr. Dhalla.