Evidence of meeting #22 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consumers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Do they have stricter regulations for phthalates or lead in California and Europe?
6:10 p.m.
Technical Committee Co-Chair, Canadian Toy Association
They regulate phthalates in California at the same levels that they do in Europe, at a thousand parts per million. However, the process and the test methodology vary from one place to another.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
Nicolas Dufour Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
First, I would like to thank the witnesses and to apologize to them for eating in their presence. I've always been told that's impolite.
Mr. Burns, you addressed a very interesting topic concerning Bill C-20. Your talk referred to an adequate number of inspectors, a question we've discussed very little since we've been studying Bill C-6.
If we pass a new bill under which more inspections will be conducted, it goes without saying that we'll have to increase the number of inspectors. However, we'll have to ensure that's not just a pious hope. An act without sufficient resources to administer it doesn't produce much of a result. I have a few fears on that subject.
In another file, the Conservative government has cut the number of inspectors, which has jeopardized certain inspections and resulted in a very unfortunate situation. I'm referring to the listeriosis affair. The government boasted of having increased the number of inspectors, whereas, in the field, clearly no inspections had been done. That resulted in some abuses. I find that paradoxical. They say they want to implement an act under which the number of inspections must be increased to protect the lives of Canadians. However, we must definitely ensure that, to do that, the government indeed intends to provide the necessary funding and resources.
I would like you to comment on what I've just said and to provide us with some details on what you consider an adequate number of inspectors. We'll have to manage the increased obligations resulting from the fact that we want to guarantee food safety. I would like you to tell us how many inspectors will be necessary, in your opinion, and how much that might cost. Perhaps you could give us a figure to facilitate the government's thinking. I would also like to know where you think those inspectors should be deployed.
6:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
You want to know how much.
6:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
That's a very challenging question.
Obviously, there needs to be more money applied to the hiring of inspectors. We have too few now. If we have too few now, obviously, when you add more work for those inspectors, it's going to create a problem, and Bill C-6 will not fulfill its objectives. It's impossible at this point to say how many inspectors will be required, because we don't know the volume of work that is going to be added for these individuals. We were discussing that today, as to the number we could put out as for the number of inspectors or how much money would be appropriate to apply to that, but we couldn't come up with a reasonable number, something we could support, other than knowing that we don't have enough now and we need more.
With the number of retirements coming along, we need to have the ability to transfer the knowledge of our inspectors. It takes time to develop an inspector. When you come out of university with a science degree, or even after you've been working in industry for a few years, you can't walk into the role of a product inspector and do that job from day one. You need to develop in that position.
The government is going to be in a very difficult position if we have a lot of inspectors retiring. We have too few now, and then you add work for them to do. All we can say is that this needs to be addressed as part of the process of implementing Bill C-6, if it's passed.
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Nicolas Dufour Bloc Repentigny, QC
That's very interesting. In my riding, there are a number of inspectors who work in the public safety field and who conduct other types of inspections for the Canadian government. There's an obvious shortage of inspectors, but, in addition, as you said earlier, the succession is inadequate. In those conditions, if a lack of funding prevents the hiring of new inspectors, there will be a defective transmission of knowledge from former inspectors to the new ones.
6:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
My apologies, but I'm not bilingual.
As I indicated, only 5% of the members of the SG group, our scientific regulators, are new on the job and are in a training position. You have 5%, and there are more than 5% of employees who are retiring. So we're not even going to be able to maintain the status quo in terms of having inspectors in place.
I hope I answered your question, because I'm not sure I fully understood the English interpretation of it.
6:20 p.m.
Bloc
Nicolas Dufour Bloc Repentigny, QC
You answered the question very well, and I thank you very much.
Ms. Reed, you talked about informing the public about what goes on in the toy manufacturing industry. I'm not talking here about industrial secrets.
6:20 p.m.
Head, Research and Representation Department, Option consommateurs
The United States and a number of European countries have adopted very strict rules respecting the safety of products intended for children. We believe that this act is a good one precisely because it enables the government to enact regulations. The safety of toys and products for children must be the minister's highest priority. Things are changing a lot elsewhere in the world. We want Canada to draw on what is being done in other countries so that we can make the best possible choices.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you, Monsieur Dufour.
Thank you, Ms. Reed.
Now we'll go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you.
Thanks to all of you.
Let me start with Option consommateurs. To Anu and Geneviève, you've pointed out in your brief a significant change from the old Bill C-52, the forerunner to Bill C-6, with the elimination of the following clause: “the Minister may disclose information to the public on the danger to health or human security that any consumer product poses”. That's a concern of mine as well. I'm wondering why you think that was changed and what exactly we should do about it. Should we put it back as is, or should we strengthen it? I'm still concerned that it would give some discretion to the minister.
Then I'd like to ask Jeff and Arthur about their concerns. Is this something you're afraid of in terms of privacy and business information?
6:20 p.m.
Head, Research and Representation Department, Option consommateurs
I'm going to answer you in French.
From what I've understood, section 18 was part of the section on confidential information. It's mainly the fact that the minister can communicate confidential information or commercial information that scared the industry and manufacturers. That's not what we want. As consumers, we want full disclosure of incidents and recalls. That already exists, but we would like the minister to be more proactive in that regard.
We want this section to be reinstated in a different section, indeed in a separate section, so as to allay the fears of certain people about its impact on the protection of confidential information.
6:20 p.m.
Chair of the Board, Canadian Toy Association
Ultimately, we're not questioning the fact of a decision by the minister. I think our concerns about confidentiality right now are truly about the trade secrets, about the communication to the manufacturers of the status of a situation. If a situation arose where a product needed to be recalled, and all communications had been properly followed, we would not question the minister doing that. That's not a concern of ours.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
You wouldn't object if we put something back in that requires the government and the minister to inform consumers if there are some questions or concerns about a product.
I'd like to ask Lucienne and Gail this question as well. If a problem comes to light about a product, there is nothing in this bill, as it's now written, that requires the minister or the government to inform consumers about that particular worry or that concern. I want to reference, in particular, the news this week about Transport Canada not releasing all that information about car seats that were clearly problematic. When it was finally exposed by the media, Transport Canada released some information. But they used the excuse that it's about privacy and business concerns. This bill doesn't even address that kind of situation. Shouldn't we have something in law that requires that at least the information get out to consumers when there is substantive evidence, when there is documentation, or when there are scientific concerns?
Let me go first to Lucienne, and then I'll go to you, Arthur.
6:25 p.m.
Chair, Health and Food Safety Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
Yes, I certainly agree with that. Oftentimes, the feeling from industry is that it will decrease the confidence of the consumer. But that's not the case. When disclosure is done, and it's open, and it's early in the event, it actually can increase the confidence of the consumer in a company. I think, too, that disclosing what the issue is will definitely help consumers making a decision. And access to information is really important to the consumer. It's one of the basic rights the consumer has.
Consumers have responsibilities as well as rights, and one of their responsibilities is to make the right choices and to seek information. If it's not released, if we don't have access to it, then we can't fulfill that responsibility.
I think it's very important. Yes, I would support it.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
6:25 p.m.
Technical Committee Co-Chair, Canadian Toy Association
We certainly support the disclosure of information. We support the quality of the disclosure of information, that is, and not the quantity of the disclosure of information.
What I mean by that is.... I have experience on disclosing information, because the Consumer Products Safety Commission in the United States has asked several retailers to disclose information about incidents involving the products they sell. What has happened as a result is that it has become a massive data dump into the government. And that type of information doesn't do anything for anybody. As a matter of fact, some important information that should be highlighted gets lost. From that perspective, I think we need to disclose information that is well vetted and well analyzed.
More importantly, when there are new, emerging hazards, not only does the government need to know, but the consumer needs to know immediately and needs to be educated about those emerging hazards. Information needs to be disclosed, but we need to go through the process of analyzing and evaluating it and giving people the proper information.
6:25 p.m.
Director, Consumers Council of Canada
Thank you.
I think analyzing and evaluating is really important, but when there is a question about a product it needs to be done quickly and accurately. Consumers need to be told the truth in a timely fashion. And consumers are able to handle the truth.
We want to be able to trust the government. We want to be able to trust industry and manufacturers. The doubts happen when consumers believe that information is being withheld or that we're not getting all the information we need. This is something that's paramount to us. I believe that this legislation is going to help in that we will receive the information we need.
Companies will survive. I look at Tylenol, when they years ago had that horrible poisoning and stuff. Tylenol is a well-respected product now, and other products are as well. I believe that Maple Leaf has been handling the listeria crisis and its public relations very well.
As a consumer who does not have....
I'm sorry.