Health Committee on May 28th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much.

This is an interesting topic. I try not to be rude, but we need to be fair to all.

[Gail Campbell]

I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. McLeod.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased that we have pretty widespread support, not only from you as witnesses but from the many witnesses we've had to the table to talk about this bill, with perhaps some minor re-twigging. Then it becomes our job to determine what pieces, if any, should be re-twigged. It's very satisfying to hear such widespread support.

On Mr. Taller's comments, I feel reassured, from indications from the minister, that natural health products will not be part of this. There will be another mechanism to address his interest.

I have a question or two about toys for the Canadian Toy Association. We've heard from speech pathologists and audiologists, and they expressed some concern that permissible noise levels of toys should be revisited. I'd certainly appreciate hearing your perspective on that issue.

[Arthur Kazianis]

It's a very good question. I have been in the toy industry for 19 years now. The question about sound-emitting toys has been challenged by virtually every country in the world. I've participated in standards-setting processes in the United States and Europe, as well as the ISO standards. I have sat down with audiologists.

The one thing I have learned is that the issue of sound is very complex because it's defined in different domains. For example, with impulsive sound versus continuous sound, you will get different results depending on the distance from which you measure the sound source. You will get different results depending on the type of equipment you use to measure the sound.

I am also quite aware of the sound levels in Canada, Europe, and everywhere else. The standard we have been using in the last few years is 85 decibels from 20 centimetres distance, which is the average distance from the source to the ear of a child. There are toys that are played with on the floor, and toys that are played with on the table. There are close-to-the-ear toys, and educational toys.

We support the regulation of sound in a sensible and scientific way. We're willing to sit down with Health Canada and audiologists to share the information we have so we can come up with a sensible and streamlined standard that applies to everybody.

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

Thank you.

This bill speaks to the balance of the role of government and the role of industry. Back in the summer of 2007 we heard about a number of toy recalls dealing with issues of small, loose magnets, and lead in paint. Can you tell us what the toy industry has been doing since that time to address toy safety?

[Arthur Kazianis]

Obviously, we were surprised to hear about all these issues. Our immediate reaction as brands and as manufacturers was to make sure that.... For example, on behalf of my company, we knew that we had certain policies and procedures in place, but our immediate reaction was that the frequency of testing was accelerated tremendously. Where we used to do it every month or every other month, we now do it on a weekly basis. That's one reaction that has taken place, and it has taken place on behalf of the whole industry. The second thing is that a lot of companies started doing unannounced audits in factories.

In addition to the two steps I mentioned, there was also the retail community. They were very scared and apprehensive about the recalls because they were directly affected in their supply chain. They were directly affected by it. They started reacting with additional testing on their own behalf, because in order to bring the product to the United States or Europe, you had to do additional testing for those retailers.

So in the course of about six to seven months, it was not unusual to see one single toy being tested 15 to 20 times. While the United States government as well as the European governments were looking for additional measures, they also imposed lower levels of lead. We have to comply with those levels.

In addition to that, the Chinese government became very vigilant in factories that were not using good quality management systems and practices. In the summer of 2007, there were about 7,200 toy factories in operation in China. There are now 3,500 factories as a result of the Chinese government cracking down by either removing their export licences or by companies just simply going out of business. We're down to 3,500 factories in China now.

Those are the types of things that have happened.

I did not address the magnets in your question. I'll say quickly that we have developed a worldwide standard, or a U.S., ISO, and European standard for magnets. Health Canada is well aware of it. As a matter of fact, they have participated in some of our meetings. We would encourage them to adopt a standard that I think is very sound and will prevent additional injuries from magnets.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to go into our second round, with five minutes for questions and answers. We're going to begin with Dr. Bennett.

Oh, have we changed? I guess we're going to--

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Dr. McTeague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. McTeague, there you go.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I'm so honoured.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a great committee. I worked with Mr. Carrie on a previous committee. I can see that he lucked out and got in on a very studious and cooperative group of individuals. I'm very proud to be here.

Thank you to all the witnesses for taking the time to be here this evening.

I have a couple of questions. I'm not the expert on this committee, but there are some areas I am interested in, particularly from a consumer perspective. I have made comments in the past about where legislation ought to be.

Perhaps any one of you could explain to me why we had to go this route of a new piece of legislation when many of the proposals in this legislation could have been covered by an amendment to the Hazardous Products Act. Is there anyone here who could explain to me why we've gone this route or if you have any concerns or objections about this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to take on that question of Dr. McTeague's?

[Lucienne Lemire]

In our view at the Consumers Council, there are five major gaps that this new Bill C-6 will address. Before, there was the inability to prevent unsafe products from entering the Canadian market. They simply couldn't keep up. I mean, there's so much coming through, and the way the law was before, they really couldn't address that.

Another gap was the inability to deal with an unregulated product or hazard. Before, they had to wait for something to happen. This bill will provide a much more proactive way of dealing with it, so that's another gap that we think is being dealt with.

Then there is the inability to detect and identify dangerous products at an early stage. Now suppliers will have to monitor their products and report adverse health and safety incidents, again without having to wait for something to happen in the industry. We think they will now be able to respond a lot quicker to appropriate dangerous products.

The other thing is the ability this new act is going to give them to deal with deceptive labelling or marks. Consumers count on that very often to make choice. We identify a mark or a brand that we know is quality. We're talking about toys. When my kids were little, I went for Fisher Price toys. To me, that was a toy that had been well thought out and was safe. But now, there's a lot of.... What do you call people who imitate a product?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Counterfeit.

[Lucienne Lemire]

Counterfeit, thank you. Sometimes they use a label on that, but it's not the real thing. That's a big issue, and it has to be dealt with.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I only have two minutes.

I think your points are very valid except that I believe the Hazardous Products Act could have covered those, simply by either regulation or through certain amendments to it.

Let me drill down a little closer to where I think there could be concerns and problems.

It seems to me that one of the things that could have been done here was to shift the liability, the burden of observation, vicariously from the government to a liability or a responsibility of manufacturers or importers to certify the safety.

I don't see this in the legislation here. I think it would be incumbent, and I'd certainly like to get the opinions of some here, that manufacturers ought to have the responsibility not only to notify but in fact to certify that their product is safe, to meet not only international standards but also domestic standards, so we gain vicariously in Canada what other jurisdictions seem to be further ahead on than we are.

Can I get comments from some of you on this? It would make the border security issue a whole lot easier, which Mr. Burns is referring to. But more importantly, it would place the burden on those who are importing or manufacturing to certify the authenticity and the safety of the product first and foremost. It seems to me the bill may very well be putting the cart before the horse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to take that question? Is anybody volunteering?

Yes, Mr. Hurst, go ahead.

[Jeff Hurst]

From a counterfeit point of view, we've always believed that's certainly a federal issue. From our point of view as an association, our members meet the standards that have been set by Health Canada, now set by the retailers, following their guidelines. So I would certainly, from a counterfeit point of view, say those products generally do not meet the standards.

Our challenge has always been.... Because we fight them too. As an industry that sells legitimate product, we say get counterfeits off the shelves; we don't want them. So we certainly found ways to help our retailers police that, but I can certainly speak from a regulatory point of view--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Hurst.

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

We'll now go to Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks very much to everyone for being here this evening.

My first question's for the Canadian Toy Association. In your brief you've outlined three areas in which you would like to see refinement or improvement in the bill: the reporting obligations, the confidentiality issue, and the international safety standards. Then, in answer to one of the other questions, you talked about a massive data dump that's taking place in the United States and you want to avoid that here in Canada.

I wonder, for one thing, if you could elaborate a little bit on that. Then in response to that same question to which you were answering, someone else had responded that if it's a serious issue we want it reported right away. So how would you differentiate between the different levels of concern when it comes to an issue, and how does Bill C-6 address that? I gather from your presentation that you would like to see some changes in that, so perhaps you could talk a little bit about that and talk also about the international requirements.

[Arthur Kazianis]

On the reporting obligation, on the safety reports to the government, we obviously would like to see some classification of what products need to be reported. For example, if a child is riding a tricycle or a bicycle and falls off and gets a bump on his head, we all know--we have all been there--that type of an incident is not the result of a defective product. A product like a bicycle or a tricycle has some inherent hazards as you're learning how to ride it. So reporting that type of an incident to the government does not do the government any good.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I'm thinking back to when I had kids, which was a long time ago. They had these things.... I remember a duck that you rode on, and it was not well balanced. People tipped off. Do they still have toys like that? Is that a possibility?

[Arthur Kazianis]

Correct. They still do, but there are also regulations that deal with the balance and the stability of those. Health Canada has regulations on the stability of those toys, as do other countries. That doesn't mean the product is dangerous or defective.

There are incidents that need to be collected and reported, assuming that the product is defective. However, if there aren't any incidents that rise to this, to what we call the “substantial product hazard”..... Those incidents will tend to confuse consumers, if they are published and the consumers read them. A lot of time is spent on the regulator side to analyze the defects and basically not develop any effective regulations going forward. The information is one thing, but it's what you do with the information that is the key to the whole thing about this. The information is collected to prevent additional injuries.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Does anybody else want to comment on any of the reporting?