Evidence of meeting #18 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Order, please.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I want to welcome the witnesses to our committee.
Prior to starting with the witnesses, I just have a few things to go over with the committee very briefly. It'll only take about five minutes.
I'm very happy to say that I went to the liaison committee today, and our budgets for the witnesses and for the trip up north were both approved.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Yes, I'm happy.
The other thing I want to talk to you about is the reminder that we're having dinner with the minister Wednesday at six o'clock at the parliamentary restaurant. She's invited all the committee members. We'll re-send that invitation in case you missed it. That's always a really good time for us to get together.
With regard to the trip up north, we'll be talking more about that on Wednesday, but we've taken the suggestions: the birthing centre in Rankin, the health clinic in Rankin, talk about Nunavut's community wellness strategy, the hospital, tours. Lots of things are going on on that particular trip. We will be leaving on the Sunday afternoon, May 24, and we'll be coming back the following Tuesday. You'll get more details on that very soon.
Right now, I need to have a motion to adopt the budget. Just to give you a reminder, today, in committee, we asked for an operating budget of $111,700 to bring in the witness for the HHR study simply because it's become such a big study that we're going to be continuing with it in the fall.
We did that budget, and we also got the budget, as I told you, of $86,745 for the travel up north.
I need to adopt the following:
That the proposed budget in the amount of $38,850, for the study of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products be adopted and that the Chair present the said budget to the Budget Subcommittee of the Liaison Committee.
I have to have that motion adopted here so that I can go to the liaison committee for that budget as well.
Ms. Murray has moved that.
(Motion agreed to)
I thought you would agree, since you wanted to see the witnesses, but we have to go through that formality.
We're going to be going to our witnesses.
About 10 minutes before the end of the meeting, I would like to see the will of the committee in terms of the witnesses subsequently for Bill C-6. We need to decide how we want to proceed with this. We have our witnesses today, and at about 5:20 we will ask to go in camera with the committee to decide how we want to proceed.
We have with us today, from the Department of Health, Paul Glover, assistant deputy minister, healthy environments and consumer safety branch; Robert Ianiro, director of consumer product safety; Charles Ethier, director general of the consumer product safety directorate; and Diane Labelle, general counsel, legal services unit.
As you know, we will hear your presentations, and then we'll go through our Q and A session.
You have roughly 10 minutes each.
Can we start with Mr. Glover?
Paul Glover Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Sure.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for the invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on Health to provide an overview and to answer questions about Bill C-6, the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.
My minister has asked me to convey to the committee her regrets. She has other obligations that prevent her from being able to appear before you today. I can assure you, however, that she's extremely committed to the passage of Bill C-6 and the benefits it would bring about for the health and safety of Canadians.
My name is Paul Glover and I am the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch of Health Canada.
I am joined today by Charles Ethier, Director General of the Consumer Product Safety Directorate, by Robert Ianiro, Director of the Consumer Product Safety Bureau, and by Diane Labelle, General Counsel in charge of the legal services unit of Justice Canada that serves my branch.
Bill C-6 forms part of the government's comprehensive Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan.
As part of the action plan, Bill C-6 is intended to deal with consumer products, and will realize significant, tangible improvements in the health and safety of consumer products by focusing on three areas for improvement. The first is active prevention, to prevent problems before they occur. Second is targeted oversight, to ensure the system is working by providing us the information we need. Third is rapid response, the ability to act swiftly when required.
The act is based on the principles that industry has the primary responsibility for the safety of any product it manufactures, imports, or distributes to the Canadian public; that the public also has a responsibility for the maintenance of its health and the safe use of marketed products; and, finally, the government also has a role and responsibility to monitor and promote compliance and to enforce the legislation it administers.
The Government of Canada is committed to promoting and protecting the health and safety of Canadians, and the proposed act before you would be a significant tool that would enhance our ability at Health Canada.
I would like to take a moment to give you a brief example of how this act would fundamentally change our department's ability to take action when confronted with dangerous consumer products. I'd like to turn to a specific example.
You may recall from media reports that in 2006 there was a worldwide problem with small magnets in children's toys. In short, there was a line of toys that contained numerous, small, and very powerful magnets. A defect in the design of the toys resulted in the magnets being released from the toys. Unfortunately, numerous children ingested these magnets. These powerful magnets were drawn together in the stomachs and intestines of these children, which led to perforations, internal bleeding, and other internal problems.
Under the Hazardous Products Act, our 40-year-old consumer product safety legislation, the Government of Canada's ability to address this issue in a timely fashion was limited. In reality, the procedures we used with industry were voluntary.
Of course, the idea of working in partnership with industry is important, but when a voluntary approach does not produce the necessary results, the government must have the necessary authority to resolve the situation.
Without Bill C-6, we did not have the authority to order a recall, stop the sale of the product, or remove the product from store shelves.
Under the proposal before you, our ability to address this situation would be greatly improved. The toy manufacturer would have been required to submit health and safety incident reports when the problem emerged, thereby getting the department important information much earlier in the process. Thanks to the general prohibition in Bill C-6, there would have been various actions that we could have taken very quickly. We could have ordered a stop to the sale, manufacture, or importation of the product, and we could have had the product removed from store shelves.
In short, you can see how Bill C-6 would strengthen the department's ability to help promote and protect the health and safety of Canadians.
As was previously noted, the Hazardous Products Act has been around for 40 years, and it's been the legal instrument we've used for protecting the Canadian public from unsafe or dangerous consumer products. Although this product safety regime has served us well since coming into force in 1969, it has become outdated and is in need of modernization.
Today's marketplace is significantly more complex than that which existed in 1999. Globalization means that products sold in Canada now originate from all over the world. Changing technologies have introduced new materials and substances into the marketplace much more rapidly. And there are now more products available to Canadian consumers.
An exact count of the number of new products would be very difficult to give, but it is safe to say that there are millions of consumer products on the market in Canada, with thousands of new products introduced each year. This raises an interesting question about how Health Canada approaches product safety. While our department does have pre-market approval regimes in place for products such as pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices, the nature of the consumer product market means that the regulatory regime for consumer products covered by Bill C-6 is post-market.
This clearly underscores an importance of having the tools that are proposed under the act that would grant our ability to respond rapidly and take appropriate actions when dangerous consumer products appear.
Our major trading partners like the United States and the European Union have already modernized their product safety regimes to address new marketplace realities. This proposed act is in keeping with these safety regimes and would afford Canadians an equitable level of protection. It would also harmonize the requirements for industry.
Bill C-6 proposes a comprehensive suite of measures that respond to the need for a modern, efficient, and proactive product safety regime. At this time, I would like to give the committee a brief overview of some of the key features of the act.
The most significant change from the current legislation would be the introduction of a new general prohibition provision. The general prohibition would make it an offence for a supplier to manufacture, import, advertise, or sell a product that poses an unreasonable danger to the health or safety of the public. This provision both reinforces the fundamental responsibility of industry to ensure the safety of its products and gives the government the tools it needs to respond rapidly, if and when required.
If we look back at the example of the small magnet that I referred to at the beginning, the government prohibition would make enforcement options immediately available when there were no regulations in place in respect to the hazards posed by a particular product. This is in stark contrast to the Hazardous Products Act, where a product-by-product approach does not allow the enforcement action in respect of a production until a regulation is in place, which is often very time-consuming.
Bill C-6 would also introduce mandatory reporting. Manufacturers, importers, and others along the supply chain would be required by law to report any significant product-related health or safety incident or product defect within a set timeframe. Again, it's the notion of targeted oversight. Mandatory reporting would strengthen Health Canada's ability to quickly identify consumer product safety problems and to respond accordingly with appropriate corrective measures. Further, and significantly, it would contribute to our ability to make product safety information available to Canadians.
Inspector powers would be strengthened. Inspectors would have the authority to order suppliers to carry out recalls and other corrective measures when required. Bill C-6 would also permit inspectors to take action to follow through on the provision of a corrective measure when the supplier fails to do so.
To further support corrective measures, new document retention requirements would require suppliers to retain information about the source and distribution of their products. This would facilitate better information gathering and sharing in the case of a health and safety incident. I again turn to the small magnet. These provisions would have permitted the government to respond quickly and efficiently in applying corrective measures where most appropriate along the supply chain.
Where there is a well-founded suspicion of a health or safety concern of a particular product, authority would be given to the minister to require suppliers to test products or to provide results of tests or studies and other information that would allow the verification of compliance or prevent non-compliance with the act.
These requirements, as is the case with other provisions in the proposed act, would not introduce new, onerous requirements for industry. Rather, they are consistent with good business practice in the exercise of normal due diligence.
Bill C-6 would also raise fines and penalties to levels that are in line with other modern federal legislation and those of our trading partners.
I'd like to repeat: Bill C-6 would also raise fines and penalties to levels that are in line with other modern federal legislation and that of our trading partners.
As well, Bill C-6 would introduce an administrative monetary penalty scheme, which we refer to as AMPS, as a more flexible and responsible alternative to criminal prosecutions. The key provisions of the act would be complemented by a standard regulatory regime, which is in keeping with other pieces of modern legislation. The regulatory authority sought would enable the department to keep pace with technology in a marketplace that evolves almost daily. More importantly, it will enable the department to maintain the flexibility to take action when new consumer-product-related risks to health and safety present themselves.
In presenting the key elements of the act, I hope I have given you a sense of the main objectives of the proposed legislation and some new features that distinguish it from the existing act. I would also like to take this opportunity, before I conclude my remarks, to respond to concerns that we have heard that this proposal would be used to regulate natural health products.
It is not the government's intention to regulate natural health products though the consumer product legislation before you today. Natural health products are now, and will continue to be, regulated by the natural health products regulations under the Food and Drugs Act. The Minister of Health has written to you to inform this committee of the government's intention to propose an amendment to Bill C-6 to expressly communicate that natural health products are excluded.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the proposed act would give the government the tools it needs to act swiftly and decisively to help protect Canadians from unsafe consumer products. My colleagues and I would now welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you or the honourable colleagues may have.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you, Mr. Glover.
We'll now go into our line of questions. We have only one person presenting today, and we have our backup people as well, so you can address your question to any one of those witnesses today.
We will have our first seven-minute round, starting with Ms. Murray.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks for the presentation. It was very clear. It's hard to boil down a complex act into some clear information like that, and I appreciate that. Also, I appreciate the intent of the act. Of course we want to make sure that children are not ingesting harmful substances in toys, so it's the right thing to do.
I have, I guess, four questions, and maybe I'll just lay them all out and the right person to answer can answer them.
One question is, could you outline for us the consultation with stakeholders and provinces and territories that was undertaken in drafting this policy and legislative direction? We have had major concerns for Bill C-11, and we need to assure ourselves.
As well, what, if any, are the implications for information privacy under the act that you're putting forward?
What feedback did you get from stakeholders and the public after having put Bill C-52 essentially in front of the public previously, and was that incorporated into changes?
I'm curious as to what would be the incremental departmental capacity that would be needed to do the information management, the inspectors, the compliance and enforcement of this bill. Do you have an assessment of the extra staff that you'll need and the cost that will be resulting from that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Excuse me, Ms. Murray, I'm so sorry, I have to interrupt you.
There's just French translation and no English, I understand. Are you having the same problems? Can we get that corrected so we have both translations going on, please? It's just French, no English. We need both, please.
I hear English now, yes. Thank you so much.
My apologies.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
My last question is about your AMPS, the administrative monetary penalty scheme. Again, who actually is going to track the fines and collect the money? That's a big administrative challenge—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm sorry, Ms. Murray, it has not been corrected. My apologies.
We are definitely not getting English translation.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I hope I don't have to be translated into English. Is my lexicon that bad?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
It's all French. It's absolutely all French.
Can you listen again now? Is English on the floor now?
No, just French.
You're happy because you can understand it. I saw your big smile, Monsieur Dufour.
We're going to have to get that corrected.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Can we ask you to try to speak very loudly? They're coming right now to fix it. I hate to suspend committee, so if you could just speak extremely loudly, that would be very helpful.
Thank you.
Ms. Murray, let's try this.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
My last question, which I think I had completed, is about the AMPS. It's complex to administer revenue collections of fines, and I'd like to know what has been identified in terms of the structure, the staffing, and the funds to do that.
Thank you.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the questions from the honourable member.
I counted five questions, and I'll try to weave one answer through all of them while touching on each of the specific questions.
We have had, and continue to have, extensive consultations on consumer product safety in general, and the act specifically, on a regular basis. This has been subject to numerous provincial-territorial meetings and discussions. We have had consultations with different industry groups where they have invited us. We have invited them to speak with us, and we have heard from numerous Canadians as we have moved forward on this.
I would characterize this as an area in which there has been a rich exchange of views from industry, Canadians, and the department on the issues before it. I acknowledge that there are always those who feel there should be more, or perhaps they are not satisfied with the consultations because their particular issue has not been reflected in the bill. But we have had numerous consultations as we have developed this.
I'll skip the privacy question and come back to it.
What sort of feedback and building on those consultations has there been to this act since we introduced Bill C-52? There has been ongoing dialogue, with some specific examples of general prohibition and the definition of danger to health and safety. You can think of the example of a stove. It is meant to be hot and there is a risk of burning, but if it's not designed properly and a young child could grab onto it and pull it over, there are different risks. We have been able to work through things like that since Bill C-52 to clarify our intentions and make some amendments with the new Bill C-6 that responded to such concerns that industry and other groups had put forward.
We were informed of concerns about inspectors' orders, how they would be completed, and what a reasonable timeframe would be. Those sorts of adjustments were worked into the new Bill C-6 that's before you. So I think it is fair to say we have capitalized on the opportunity that was presented to us between Bill C-52 and the introduction of Bill C-6.
On this bill and all of the information requirements, we have had ongoing discussions with the Privacy Commissioner to make sure that the information we house and retain is respectful of those requirements. As we develop the regulations to support this, we will continue to make sure we are respectful of privacy information and confidential business information as it moves forward.
On incremental departmental capacity, there is a range. We would be happy to provide a full breakdown of the resources, but one specific area is inspection. We talk about active prevention and targeted oversight, but there is also an inspection function, where the department intends to double the number of inspectors in support of this legislation.
On the issue of AMPS, the inspectors are working on a process that would look at the severity of the issue and how often a company has been involved in a problem with us in order to arrive at what we feel is an appropriate administrative monetary penalty.
On the actual implementation of those collections, I will ask Robert Ianiro to elaborate further.
Robert Ianiro Director, Consumer Product Safety, Department of Health
Thank you, Paul.
I think it's important that people realize how the whole administrative monetary penalty schemes work. A monetary fine is levied when suppliers fail to take corrective action that has been ordered. So they've been given valid notice of what activity they have to carry out, and they have decided not to carry that out. They are then subject to a notice of violation that is subject to a fine.
As Mr. Glover was mentioning, the specifics of how we determine the fines are subject to regulations. He's gone through some of the factors that would be taken into consideration, such as past compliance history, level of risk, and whether there was a degree of negligence or intent in that action. The fines can be upwards of $25,000 per violation for anyone who is conducting business for commercial purposes. Anyone conducting business for non-commercial purposes is subject to a fine of up to $5,000.
The drafting of those regulations is well under way. The fines are collected as we would collect any other fine through the Receiver General for Canada. If the fines are not paid in full, the Receiver General follows the normal process, as when you're not paying your taxes.
Conservative
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Good afternoon, and thank you for being with us.
Mr. Glover, in your presentation, you said that there would be an amendment to expressly exclude natural health products. But when we met with Mr. Ethier, it seemed to me to be already clear that they were not included in Bill C-6.
I would just like to know if, since our meeting, other items like that have been included in amendments that will be introduced on second reading in the House.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
The short answer is “no“.
The natural products situation is somewhat unique. Some people are very concerned by the matter and by the legislation that deals with it. We wanted to make things clear. This really is the only situation like that.
Charles Ethier Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health
As Mr. Glover mentioned, it was always very clear to us that natural health products were not covered by this bill, as we discussed when we met. However, to make the legislation even clearer, this amendment was proposed, but it is the only one since our meeting.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
When you answered Ms. Murray's question, you said that the number of inspectors would be doubled. Please allow us to be a little worried about that because, for some time, we have mostly seen the number of inspectors going down.
I am going to ask you some questions about inspection because I feel that, with this stricter bill in effect, there has to be more muscle on the street to make sure that it is enforced.
You tell us that the number of inspectors will be doubled. How did you arrive at the figure for the right number of inspectors being the present number times two, and how are you going to assign them? Where are you going to add staff and why did you decide that those places are the right ones for the increase?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Our intention in drafting this bill was not to double the number of inspectors. We analyzed the marketplace and saw its many problems and its complexity. We realized that the present number of inspectors was not sufficient to meet the current challenges. It was not a matter of just doubling the number of inspectors, but of being able to meet the challenges.
Actually, some import centres, some industries, some small stores like Dollar Store and the like, always pose somewhat more difficult problems, we feel. That is why we realized that it was necessary to increase staff.
I will ask my colleague Mr. Ethier to answer your question about how the inspectors will be assigned.
Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health
Thank you, Paul.
When we talk about doubling the number of inspectors, it is an estimate. We have already started hiring a number of them. At the beginning of the fiscal year, that is, in April 2008, there were about 42 inspectors. Today, there are 56. We will increase our inspection capacity annually.
In his presentation, Mr. Glover spoke about the Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan. This action plan has a large number of elements based on three pillars: active prevention, targeted oversight and rapid response. We must change our approach to health and to consumer product safety, and we must work differently, especially by creating more partnerships than in the past. For example, we are going to work with the Canadian Border Services Agency in an attempt to identify problems at the point of entry before the products ever get to market in Canada.
Active prevention means working closely with Canadian distributors and manufacturers and providing them with advice so that, as they develop their products, they are well aware of the need to ensure they are safe. By working at that level, we prevent problems at the retail stage and when the products are in the consumers' hands.
So this is a very different way of dealing with the problem. We are looking to establish a structure. The new legislation is an extremely important tool that will allow us to reach our objectives. So we have to increase the number of inspectors in order for the partnerships to be highly effective in program delivery.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
From the time when the bill gets royal assent, how long do you think you will need to meet all the objectives established by the act, such as keeping our border relatively secure and making sure that the products on our shelves are safe?
Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health
That is a very good question. I would like to able to tell you that everything will be done very quickly. The partnerships with border services have been established. Measures are in place to facilitate the exchange of information that will allow us to identify the products that may cause problems before they ever arrive in Canada. A number of factors need to be considered. Our action plan will evolve in coming years. We will have to keep increasing our staff and our ability to manage the program. There is a lot of work to be done. We will take the time we need in order to do it. We are trying to identify and reach our objectives as quickly as we can.
