Health Committee on May 5th, 2009

[Paul Glover]

Madam Chair, I'll continue quickly with the member's two additional questions.

With respect to acute exposure, I would again return to the chemicals management plan that has identified the priorities that are of highest concern to the government and that is looking at acute exposure. It is also looking at the cumulative effects of exposure. It is looking at the different passive exposure from the range of products that exist and, again, at the different pieces of legislation working together, to figure out what is the best way for the government to respond.

BPA is a very good example that you raised. Does it really need to be in the baby bottle? No. But there are some benefits with respect to the can lining and the preservation and, in the absence of that, the spoiling of the food that's in that. Until we get safer alternatives, we're working with industry to drive those down. So there are different responses relative to the risk and how we move forward.

With respect to engaging consumers, absolutely; part of the targeted approach through active prevention is to make sure that not only industry knows what we expect from them, but consumers also have the information so they can make informed choices.

I'm not attempting at all to be defensive, but through the old Hazardous Products Act, it was a regulatory process where we were required.... The onus was on government to prove that a product was hazardous and then to advance the regulations. We will now be gearing up, if and when this legislation passes, to be more active in engaging consumers. Chuck and his group have already been doing that, creating databases on recalls. Not only do we do that but the industry itself does it, to make sure that there's more information to consumers in order for them to make their own choice.

Finally, as we move forward, we see Canada already committed to the globally harmonized system of labelling. We believe when that comes into force to complement this, that will also help by putting new labels on consumer products that are globally harmonized to represent the warnings around products.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much, Mr. Glover.

We'll now go to Mr. Uppal.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

My first couple of questions will mostly be on the inspectors. Under this new legislation, will the provisions allow an inspector and persons accompanying the inspector to enter or pass through private property without restriction? That's one of my questions.

An inspector has quite a broad range of powers. Why are these powers necessary and how will you ensure that these powers are used appropriately?

I'll ask my third question, then you can answer all of them.

You mentioned general prohibition. Could you explain further what is general prohibition, and how industry players will know if their products comply with the act, including the general prohibition?

[Paul Glover]

Thank you.

I'll again start with the last question, the general prohibition, because it helps frame the larger answer, if it please the chair.

The general prohibition essentially—it's very simplistic, I acknowledge that—sets out for industry that the onus is on them to make sure the products they're importing and selling into Canada do not pose a health and safety risk. By extension of that—say somebody's choosing to manufacture outside of Canada—the onus is on them to have the appropriate quality control processes in place to make sure they know the ingredients coming into that product, wherever that plant is, and if there are multiple plants in different countries, they have the appropriate quality controls there to make sure the finished goods meet their design specifications and there is not an undue risk for Canadians with respect to the use of that product.

It would also mean they've done the appropriate research and testing on the design of that product to make sure it is safe and, when used properly, will not create problems as it moves forward. These are things industry does now for its own reasons in terms of liability and quality control. This is just building on that and clearly stating to them that the onus is on them to make sure that the products they bring into this country and sell to consumers are safe.

That is the fundamental principle behind the general prohibition that drives the action we would move.

With respect to the issue of inspectors, I'll call upon my colleague Robert Ianiro to elaborate further. But our intention with inspectors is to make sure they have the ability to go into businesses around the transaction of consumer products to make sure they can take a look at the corrective action they need to take—if it is properly labelled; if there are problems with seizure, to verify that the corrective order we've asked to be put in place has actually been transacted; and, if we're not getting cooperation, to seize products so we can do our research.

That is the intention with respect to the inspectors and the range of discretions afforded to them. The act does also allow for certain reviews of how we are using the discretion that has been afforded to us in this through independence.

Robert.

[Robert Ianiro]

Thank you.

I can definitely add a few other points. I think it's important to note that the proposed Canada Consumer Products Safety Act and our inspectors' powers, in fact, are in line with many of the powers we already have under the current Hazardous Products Act and in line with many of the modern health and safety federal statutes that exist to protect Canadians.

As Paul has mentioned, obviously these powers are here to prevent problems in the first place and to deal with things in a rapid manner when they do arise.

In instances where our inspectors are entering establishments, it is for a very limited and specific purpose. First of all, it's within reasonable grounds to believe that there is an activity being undertaken in relation to the manufacturing, selling, advertising, importing—whatever the case may be—of consumer products, and there has to be a purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance. So the powers are already very narrow, limited, and specific from that perspective.

There is some belief out there that our inspectors will be able to enter private property and private dwellings. In fact that is not the case. In any instances where we would have to enter private dwellings or dwelling homes, we would have to do so with the consent of the homeowner or under a search warrant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Just go ahead very quickly, Mr. Uppal. We're almost out of time.

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

Okay.

I was just going to touch on that point. If there's a business-registered address, but it's a home, and it's actually the office for some manufacturing company, is that still the same thing because it's a home?

[Robert Ianiro]

Unless legal has anything to add, I would think it would still be considered a place of business at that point, if it were a registered entity, absolutely. If it were some sort of sole proprietor who, I guess, was running a business out of his home as an individual, then I would think perhaps the other scenario would be the case. But in the case you describe, it sounds as if that would, in fact, also be a place of business.

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

And this goes for people who have a company—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Uppal.

Monsieur Dufour.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also want to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

You talked earlier about the little magnets in toys. My question is an operational one. I would like to know how the legislation is applied during the inspection process. You talked briefly about the way in which you are going to decide whether a product poses a danger. I would like to know how you are going to decide that and how much time will be needed to complete the testing that determines whether there is a danger or not.

You mentioned targeted oversight earlier. I would like you to explain what that is and how you are going to go about it.

[Paul Glover]

I will start that answer and then hand it over to my colleague Charles.

As for surveillance, if the use of a product causes a death or a problem, the companies, the distributors and manufacturers are required to provide information about the incident. That is one of the ways of getting information when a problem occurs.

Charles?

[Charles Ethier]

Thank you, Paul.

Let me go back to the problem with the little magnets.

The bill would require the distributors of a product to provide us with incident reports. When the little magnets came loose, those were incidents. Some children swallowed them and had health problems as a result.

Under this bill, the incident reports would give us reasonable grounds to conduct investigations and inspections of the product in question, including getting samples to test in order to determine the cause of the problem in our laboratory here in Ottawa. The general prohibition allows us to take immediate corrective action such as taking the product off the market if it poses a real danger to children's health.

Under the current Hazardous Products Act, we would just have to wait until distributors took corrective action to fix the problem on a voluntary basis, or wait for a regulation to be put into effect, which could be a very long process.

As for targeted surveillance, as Paul mentioned, the incident reports will allow us to develop a database of information that will help us to identify potential problems beforehand. That means better focus for our inspections and for our actions in dealing with problems before they happen. With so many products on the market, we cannot inspect everything. The reports and the database that we are going to develop will give us a better ability to zero in on problems wherever they are to be found.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It was mentioned earlier that similar laws have been put in place in other countries. The United States and the European Union were specifically mentioned. Have you noticed whether harmonizing their legislation has had any negative effects as well as the positive ones? Were the inspectors ready for the job, and were there enough of them? Did businesses need to change their operations, and, if so, was adapting to these changes complicated for them? Have we seen fewer incidents?

[Paul Glover]

Harmonization has advantages for industry and for us as well. In toy design, for example, industry standards are the same in Canada, the United States and the European Union. The verification process is easier. If an incident occurs in another country, we are informed. That exchange of information helps us and our inspectors.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Is there really a desire to work with other countries?

[Charles Ethier]

That is really a very good question.

The European Union and the United States have changed, modernized, their legislative framework in recent years. Adjustments must be made to accommodate all the changes made to the legislation. Under Bill C-6, our efforts will be in changing our legislation to harmonize it with the legislation in effect in other countries.

As my colleague Paul mentioned, the exchange of information between our governments and our product safety officers is being improved. The goal really is to have a global approach to problems that may arise. In matters of product safety, the problems we face are not unique to Canada. Because of this cooperation, and the committees established to make it possible, we anticipate that the tools that this new bill provides will allow us to react to problems much more quickly and to work more closely with our colleagues around the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, Monsieur Dufour, your time is up.

We're now going to go to Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'm sorry, but I thought Mr. Brown was ahead of me. My apologies.

Again, I like following these examples because it helps me interpret the differences. We talked a little earlier, for example, about the BPA in water bottles. How did that process happen previously and how would things be different with this new act? I guess this is about just walking through the steps of the differences.

[Paul Glover]

The BPA is both a good and a bad example about what is different. BPA is a bad example in terms of this act specifically, in that it was noted in the chemicals management plan as a priority, so it was already a trigger for the government, which was moving to act.

There was an assessment done that looked at all of the various sources from which Canadians could be exposed to BPA. It looked at that in consumer products. It looked at the use of those consumer products. It looked at that in all kinds of products, including foods, food packaging, and other things, to arrive at an integrated assessment about which populations were most at risk, and then took a look at the appropriate interventions in order to respond to that particular risk. That would continue to happen, where Canada is a world leader in terms of chemicals management and identifying those risks.

What would be different with this act is that we would then be able, as a result, to move very quickly with industry without having to develop regulations to say, “If this substance poses an unacceptable risk and doesn't belong in your product, you are breaking the general prohibition”. We would be able to act.

If we were uncertain, we could demand tests of industry. How do you know that this product is safe and that it doesn't come out of the product and expose humans to it? What is the ultimate fate when disposed into the environment? What cumulative exposures have you considered? We'd be able to work that in as we move forward. That's where it really helps us as we move forward.

The most fundamental change with this bill is that it moves from the government having to provide proof and introduce regulations, to, in the absence of that, which is a time-consuming process, working voluntarily with industry. This bill allows us to clearly state to industry, “The onus is on you to provide us the information we need to make sure that's working”. When it's not, then we're going to be there as that backstop. Along the way, we will inspect and we will make sure the system is working, which allows us to move far more rapidly.

As for our objective with Bill C-6, I will again go back to my comments, as they are so fundamentally important to us. In a system that is post-market, not pre-market, where we don't get to see products ahead of time, active prevention is through the establishment of standards. We will work with the Canadian Standards Association and others to say what standards should exist for different consumer products. Then we would tell industry that they need to use those standards that would be appropriate.

Those types of active preventions, including working with targeted oversight, the incident report and getting the information we need, the inspection, cyclical enforcement, taking a look at what's coming into our country, and then backstopping that with the rapid response, will allow for far more timely action on a broader range of issues when voluntary actions fail.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

To follow through, being as that's not a good example, maybe a better example would be flammable clothing for young children. Let's say you have a store in Ottawa that has imported pyjamas from country X and also some that are made within Canada, and they don't meet our criteria in terms of resistance. Is there more of a challenge in getting the imported products off the shelf versus the Canadian products?

[Paul Glover]

That's an excellent question. The short answer is no.

The concern that this bill addresses is the health of Canadians and the safety of the products they produce. Whether you manufacture or import, the burden on industry is exactly the same in terms of reporting incidents and of tracking where your products are made, whether that's in this country or, if you're importing them, who you're importing them from and where they're getting them from, so that if there are problems we can trace those back to the appropriate manufacturing site.

The ultimate objective is the protection of the Canadian public whether the product is made in Canada or imported. The onus is the same. Whether you're making it here or somewhere else, know the design of your product, know the ingredients in the product, and make sure those ingredients do not pose an unacceptable risk to Canadians. If they do, with this bill, through the general prohibition, the targeted oversight, and our ability to respond rapidly, we'll be there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much, Mr. Glover.

We'll now go to Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for coming.

I'm struggling with parts of the bill and I'll tell you why. The last bill lasted for many years, and there is the opportunity for this one to last for many years. I think we have the opportunity to do something that will protect the health of Canadians.

Mr. Glover, you mentioned there are three pillars of the bill, including active prevention.

We all know that Canadians have heavy metals, pesticides, toxic chemicals in their bodies. The Canadian Cancer Society says that if we can reduce some of those chemicals, we will reduce cancers.

If the focus is on active prevention, why doesn't the bill phase out or ban known carcinogens and other toxic chemicals in consumer products? Ontario is requiring big companies, just in the last month, to track and report on their use of toxic chemicals and to develop plans to ban them.

The second question is regarding the fact that you mention prohibition. In talking about prohibition, how do you define “unreasonable” in regard to health and safety, and wouldn't carcinogenic qualify?

Third, I know that the bill talks about mandatory reporting, and this, of course, is a good thing, yet we're not asking for a labelling scheme. You say there are comparisons with what's happening in the U.S. and the EU, and I agree. I think those are good things. But in California, for example, a product that contains a known or suspected carcinogen has to have a warning label.

I'm wondering if you could address those, please.

[Paul Glover]

Thank you for those excellent questions.

I will, through my response, probably turn to my colleague Charles Ethier to help round out this response.

There are a number of issues. First, with respect to labelling, Canada has already committed, through international obligations, to implement something called the globally harmonized system of labelling.

If you think about those little warning symbols that exist on consumer products now, those are being revamped and the entire world is moving to a new system of labelling. Rather than create duplicate systems--to burden industry with two labelling systems--we are moving to implement the GHS with our trading partners, with all of the rest of the world, so that there will be one labelling system that will explain what the risks to consumers are. They will have that information in a standard format, regardless of the country they're in.

We are committed to moving to that labelling system.