Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

An Act respecting the safety of consumer products

This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, which ended in March 2011.

Sponsor

Leona Aglukkaq  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

October 21st, 2010 / 11:35 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Nicolas Dufour Bloc Repentigny, QC

Thank you very much. You know, Minister, that a government can walk and chew gum at the same time. However, I understand the problem with the Senate and I entirely agree with you. That's one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish it.

Let's change the subject, Minister. With regard to Bill C-36, I have certain questions about the minister's discretionary authority. I would simply like you to explain to me how a recall might be done and how you will determine that a product is hazardous. Also, what limits will you set for yourselves for recalling one product rather than another?

October 21st, 2010 / 11:30 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Nicolas Dufour Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Chair, if you say I'm straying off topic by providing background to the bill, I don't see what the economic crisis has to do with it. The economic crisis is unrelated to the passage of a bill; at least that's what I think. Nevertheless, four years elapsed between the tabling of the Auditor General's report and the start of the debate on second reading of Bill C-36.

I have to wonder, Minister. I see that all the parties want to move as quickly as possible. However, we see that there has been no concrete action on the government side. I repeat, in June 2010, when Bill C-36 was introduced, you could have sought unanimous consent. The committee had already worked on it; we had been working on it for a long time. Between the end of April and June 2009, we had five meetings on Bill C-36, and the committee was unanimous; there was consent by all parties. When I'm told that this is important, that we have to move quickly...

We saw what happened with cadmium, for example. If the bill had already been passed, we could have avoided problems last year. So you can't tell me that you're taking this seriously and that you want to take all possible steps. We can see that's not the case. Not all steps have been taken, and, no, you haven't been as quick as you could have been.

October 21st, 2010 / 11:25 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

With all due respect, Monsieur Dufour, can we get to Bill C-36?

October 21st, 2010 / 11:20 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Thank you very much for coming.

Minister, this bill obviously has a very long history within this committee and in the Senate as well.

Some of the witnesses who had come forward--in particular, Option consommateurs, had recommended a national recall registry to put together a list that would actually identify the products that are being recalled with information to be able to help consumers.

I know even talking to my constituents in Brampton—Springdale that one day a crib is being recalled; another day a piece of jewellery is being recalled; food is being recalled. The list goes on and on. This particular bill really didn't address the recall register.

Would you be able to provide some information as to why Health Canada didn't incorporate a recall registry into Bill C-36? And do you think such a thing would be necessary to help Canadians when we are having products recalled?

October 21st, 2010 / 11:20 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

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

October 21st, 2010 / 11:20 a.m.
See context

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.

October 21st, 2010 / 11:15 a.m.
See context

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.

October 21st, 2010 / 11:05 a.m.
See context

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.

October 21st, 2010 / 11:05 a.m.
See context

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.

October 19th, 2010 / 12:40 p.m.
See context

Director, Consumer Product Safety Bureau, Department of Health

Robert Ianiro

Exactly. There are a couple of elements. The first thing is—we didn't raise this, and it didn't come up in any of the questions—that we have new requirements in Bill C-36 that don't currently exist under the Hazardous Products Act. These relate to false and misleading claims relating to certification or health and safety claims. If it is indicated that something meets standards of CSA, the Canadian Standards Association for electrical safety...those types of things would be prohibited. So there are some new labelling and misleading and false claim requirements under the bill.

Speaking specifically to what we would do if we got that complaint, clearly we would need to identify whether it falls within the scope of the act. Clearly in this case, a frying pan does; it is an unregulated product. If it contained a substance of concern and we did a risk assessment and determined that there was an exposure to that substance and that therefore potentially it created a danger to human health or safety, we would have the ability.

It's an interesting example, because it's an unregulated product. Currently, under the HPA it would be very similar and analogous to the cadmium example we've used. Going forward, under Bill C-36, if there is a substance of concern that is found in the consumer product and there is exposure to that substance, then we would have the ability and the authority to take action.

The exposure is critical, because you could have a substance in a product that isn't accessible: there is no exposure; it isn't available. And it's only through that exposure that there actually could be a health concern.

October 19th, 2010 / 12:40 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

So in this particular case, if someone brought this forward, you would assess it against the substance. You would determine whether Bill C-36 was....

October 19th, 2010 / 12:40 p.m.
See context

Director, Consumer Product Safety Bureau, Department of Health

Robert Ianiro

I'll try that one.

The labelling you're referring to, I would suspect, not having all the details, is reminiscent of labelling that is in place under Proposition 65 in the state of California, whereby you're required to label pretty much any product that contains any substance that is a known carcinogen, mutagen, or reprotox.

What I find a bit intriguing and perhaps bizarre in this situation is that it's about potentially killing birds. All I could suggest is that I think it's stemming from overheating frying pans. There is a certain chemical in the frying pans, which is often what's called PFOS. I'm not even going to try to give you what that stands for, but I'm pretty sure it's perfluorinated octanal sulfonate. It is something that's used in non-stick. If you put your frying pan on a stove for extended periods of time at high heat, it will release these fumes, and they could potentially kill birds.

I think we would probably be a bit more concerned if it were.... This is not to suggest that I'm not a bird lover, but we obviously would be more concerned with human health, with respect to Bill C-36, which is what we're here to speak to you about.

October 19th, 2010 / 12:35 p.m.
See context

NDP

Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON

I have just one follow-up very quickly. Some of the—I hate to say “negative”—people are concerned with this bill and basically don't want it to be seen that we're creating a dragnet where anything can be considered a potential danger—like we have to put a big warning sign on scissors that you shouldn't run with them. Anything is possible, but what is practicable?

Is the definition “danger to health and human safety” in Bill C-36 too broad?

October 19th, 2010 / 12:25 p.m.
See context

Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health

Athana Mentzelopoulos

Madam Chair, the changes that we've made between Bill C-6 and Bill C-36 really speak to some of the concerns that were expressed around inspectors' powers. For example, there's concern that an inspector might be able to enter a home for the purposes of looking at goods that were stored for personal use. It's very clear now that the actions for an inspector are confined, first of all, to the legislation, and that goods stored for personal use, for example, are outside of the realm of what the inspectors could look at.

In addition, there was some concern about what the liability might be for passing over private property. We've addressed that as well.

So really, we looked at the totality of the concerns. They were very much oriented around inspectors' powers. We believe that we've addressed them through the amendments we've made.

Again, in terms of each specific amendment, I think we would have to come back with the details of each of them, if that were what was requested.

October 19th, 2010 / 12:25 p.m.
See context

Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health

Athana Mentzelopoulos

I'm not sure how helpful we can be in the specific details. We may want to revisit it with information about each of the amendments.

In general, the concerns that were voiced at the Senate were very much related to inspectors' powers. The changes made between Bill C-6 and Bill C-36 were really to address some of the issues—for example, a concern that inspectors might have the authority to—