Health Committee on May 28th, 2009

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

He can go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay, back to you, Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I do have more questions.

I want to direct a question to Ms. Coombs.

You talked about international labelling standards. I use your products, through your members, quite often, and you do have products that are manufactured in other countries. I don't know if in Canada we have products that are manufactured in Europe or California. Are there any issues in regard to trade, whereby, depending on how we put this legislation in, trade might be affected negatively or positively? You did mention that the products we consume here in Canada meet or exceed Canadian standards. In your industry, is it a usual thing that something is made in California to a higher standard, you ship it into Canada, but it's just the labelling that's different and the product inside is exactly the same? Is that fair to say, or not quite?

[Shannon Coombs]

There are a lot of questions. I'll try my very best to answer.

Proposition 65 doesn't require labelling the presence; you're only labelling at a meaningful level. When our companies are marketing products they normally market on a North American basis. However, if there is a precautionary labelling that needs to be on a certain type of product, it meets and exceeds the Canadian standard, absolutely. There are different products manufactured in this jurisdiction.

One of the reasons we have been supportive of GHS is that from a company perspective, because GHS is a program that's designed for workplace chemicals as well as consumer and transportation, it would be good to facilitate trade to have a GHS type of system. However, unless the U.S. is going to move with us, there is very little benefit to us because we have a comprehensive labelling system in place in Canada currently.

With respect to the cost you mentioned earlier, we do have some cost with respect to how GHS was implemented just for soaps and detergents in the EU. The cost was 400 million euros to implement GHS just for soaps.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

What's that in Canadian dollars? Do you know?

[Shannon Coombs]

I'm not too sure what the rate is, but it's about $650 million. I don't know the rate of exchange, but I'm ballparking it.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That's just for soaps.

[Shannon Coombs]

Yes, just for soaps.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

Dr. Schwarcz, my colleague brought up the hot list concept. What's the feasibility of adopting this type of list?

You talked a little about potential hazards versus real risks. It's very important for Canadians to understand the real risks. We've seen some discussion, for example, on something that's a carcinogen that may be in sunscreen, but in that formulary it's actually a good thing, and we don't want to scare people away from using sunscreen. Could you comment on this thing we call “potential hazards” versus real risks?

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

Those kinds of decisions can't be left up to the consumer. If there is a real risk, then that has to be made at a level of scientific inquiry. It's toxicologists, developmental biologists, chemists, and physicians who should be making that decision. If the decision is that the ingredient in that product represents a danger, then it should not be sold. It should not be left up to the consumer looking at the labels in the store to decide which one they should buy, because they are not equipped to do that. To know anything is extremely difficult, especially in the area of toxicology. There are so many variables. These decisions have to come at a higher level.

My answer would be that although it's nice to educate the consumer about risk analysis and risk-benefit ratios, etc., we can't leave them floundering out there to make that decision for themselves. It has to be made by people who know what they're talking about.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I see this, too, as a kind of grey area. I like to eat naturally. Like I said, I like almonds, and I think they have arsenic in them. If you eat a lot of those.... I like apples too, and sometimes they have these waxes and pesticides and even--

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

Cyanide.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Yes, and cyanide, yet we want to eat these things.

Ms. Coombs was saying that it has to be broad-based. For example, it doesn't make a lot of sense in my mind. If I put this plastic pen in my mouth, do we have to label this pen? Do we have to start labelling apples and almonds? How do you go about doing that?

I'll just throw this comment out there. Where do you see personal responsibility ending versus government regulation and how do we as a committee get our heads around that?

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

These issues, as I said, are so complex--

[A voice]

What isn't?

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

--but this has to be done as a regulation by people who know what it is they're doing and what it is they're regulating. Personal responsibility comes down to things like deciding whether you are going to eat French fries every day, okay? Yes, that's a personal kind of decision. But as for whether or not you're going to make a decision about the amount of acrylamide present in those French fries that are fried at one temperature relative to another temperature, the average person can't make that kind of decision. If that is important, then there has to be a law saying you cannot fry French fries above a certain temperature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much.

Today has been extremely interesting. All of the witnesses here have brought forward some very thought-provoking and very insightful comments on the bill. We appreciate that from all of you so very much.

Here's what we're going to do now. Our committee is sitting very late tonight. I'm going to suspend the committee and ask people to leave the room as quickly as they can.

Don't swipe the food. The food is coming in to feed the committee and then we're going right to work again.

Thank you so much. I'll suspend for about two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you for coming. I need to make sure that you understand what's going to happen in the next two hours, because this is going to be a busy place.

I would ask that you be aware that the food at the back is for the members of Parliament only, because we have a very long meeting. I'm sorry to be so selfish, but this is what we have to do. I don't want to suspend to have dinner for the committee; I want to make it a working committee. I see disappointed faces. As I've said, the food is only for the members of Parliament, because we've only ordered for the members of Parliament.

I'll ask you to take your seats now, so we can start right at 5:30. We're going to go into the committee meeting very shortly. We're going to ask the members of Parliament—I know it's a little awkward, but we have no choice—to eat as we're conducting our business here in committee.

We welcome our witnesses. We have the Canadian Food Association, represented by Mr. Taller. I guess you're quite happy that we have healthy food for the MPs tonight. From the Canadian Toy Association, we have Arthur Kazianis and Mr. Hurst, who is chair of the board. From the Consumers Council of Canada, we have Lucienne Lemire, the chair of their health and safety committee, and Gail Campbell, director. From Option consommateurs, we have Anu Bose, head of the Ottawa office, and Geneviève Reed, head of research and representation department. From the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, we have Don Burns, vice-president, and Tawfik Said, their research officer, compensation and policy analyst. Welcome.

We will start with Mr. Taller, from the Canadian Health Food Association.

[Joel Taller, Legal Counsel, Canadian Health Food Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Joel Taller. I'm legal counsel to the Canadian Health Food Association, the CHFA.

On behalf of the association, I'd like to thank this committee for the important work you do and the opportunity to appear before you to address an important piece of legislation, Bill C-6.

The CHFA is Canada's largest national trade association dedicated to the natural and organic products industry. Our members represent the entire supply chain, including growers, manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors, and importers involved in a variety of industry subsectors, such as vitamin and mineral supplements, herbal products, homeopathics, sports nutrition products, natural and organic fibres, and health and beauty aids. The products support Canadians seeking to enhance and maintain health and well-being and together represent an industry worth more than $3.5 billion annually.

Our interest in Bill C-6 stems in part from our disappointment that natural health products were not specifically articulated as being exempt from Bill C-6 and our concern with respect to some of the new powers proposed in Bill C-6, which might find their way into future amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. We have written the minister expressing our concern that natural health products were not specifically mentioned as exempt from Bill C-6 and we have received a positive response from the minister indicating that amendments will be proposed that address our concern. We hope this committee will support any proposed amendment that will specifically articulate in the proposed legislation that natural health products will be exempt.

We also believe in the importance of having a variety of powers available to both the Minister of Health and inspectors, should it be necessary. As a $3.5-billion industry in Canada, the majority of our industry is small and medium-sized enterprises that are working hard to comply with the current regulations. As a regulated industry built on innovation, the economic impact of heavy enforcement without the necessary checks and balances is not acceptable. While we are pleased to see that the government recognizes the need for enhanced powers, nonetheless it will be important for those granted these additional powers to understand their limits. It remains our concern that there should be reasonable oversight with respect to the exercise of those powers.

Over the years, our members and the industry as a whole have argued for an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework that recognizes the unique and low-risk nature of natural health products. The 1998 Standing Committee on Health's 53 recommendations, contained in the report entitled “Natural Health Products: A New Vision”, gave stakeholders hope that their voice had been heard by the federal government.

The first recommendation was for the creation of a definition for “natural health products” distinct from food and drugs, and for the Food and Drugs Act to be amended accordingly. Stakeholders were told by Health Canada in 1998 that the most expedient way to implement the decisions of the standing committee was not to wait for an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, but rather, in the interim, accept the implementation of the natural health product regulations, with NHPs defined therein as a “subset” of drugs.

This was only to be a short-term fix until such time as the Food and Drugs Act as it was amended was part of a more comprehensive review. Not only is this perception of NHPs being a subset of drugs troubling, but many within the industry believe this has resulted in a shift in the interpretation by the regulator of a regulatory framework bringing those requirements more in line with drugs.

Our members have expressed concern that their experiences with the natural health products directorate no longer appear to follow the original intent of the standing committee. In many cases the expectations that have been applied to NHPs are the same as or more stringent than those applied to drugs, including drugs that were previously approved by Health Canada. This is not acceptable.

Make no mistake, the CHFA is committed to the highest level of consumer safety. That said, the principle of smart regulation is not reflected in the experience of our members. Despite the generally low-risk nature of NHPs, in many cases our industry is experiencing the very same regulatory rigours as drugs. In today's economy, the Canadian public is not well served by a regulatory regime that hinders innovation with no discernible increase in consumer protection. These are safe and well-designed products, for which the regulatory framework should promote, not impede, innovation, bringing to Canadians new, safe, and high-quality products, allowing them to take charge of their health while allowing the industry to create jobs across the country.

The natural health products and organic industry believes in providing safe, effective, and high-quality products to Canadians working to enhance and maintain health and well-being. We therefore recognize the need to ensure that all products are safe. Our industry believes contaminated products should be removed from the marketplace and not be made available for sale. This is critical to the continued growth of our industry in Canada.

In closing, CHFA hopes that this committee will support amendments that will specifically reflect that natural health products are exempt from Bill C-6 and ensure that the suite of powers provided for in Bill C-6 are subject to reasonable checks and balances that will ensure the health of Canadians while permitting those who are subject to those powers an opportunity to respond in an appropriate manner and within a reasonable timeframe.

Thank you very much for your time this evening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Could we now go to the Canadian Toy Association?

Mr. Hurst, please.

[Jeff Hurst, Chair of the Board, Canadian Toy Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

As chairman of the Canadian Toy Association, I appreciate this opportunity to help advance our shared goal of improving toy safety by addressing Bill C-6, an act respecting the safety of consumer products. With me, also from the Canadian Toy Association, is Arthur Kazianis, who will assist in answering members' questions this evening.

The Canadian Toy Association's 110 members are manufacturers, importers, and distributors of toys, generating about $1.8 billion of annual retail sales in Canada. Although the Canadian industry is large, our core members are actually smaller Canadian businesses.

CTA's members are vitally concerned about toy safety. Since recalls by some large multinational toy companies two years ago, our members have worked hard to further enhance toy safety. Toy manufacturers have increased their investment in safety throughout the product development process, including the evaluation of product designs and testing prototypes throughout the manufacturing process. This includes testing raw materials, preproduction samples, in-process goods, and finished products. Toy manufacturers also audit the compliance of their vendors and suppliers, ensuring that they are following safety procedures.

There is consensus among experts that this focus on safety throughout the product development process is the best way to ensure safety. These measures have greatly improved our members' ability to ensure toy safety in a global economy. Apart from these private initiatives, CTA recognizes that the government can further advance our mutual goal of enhanced toy safety. CTA accordingly supports the government's initiative to update Canada's consumer product safety law, and we welcome this opportunity to work with the government and Health Canada.

I would like to emphasize that this legislation will be guiding the government and stakeholders for many years to come, and we therefore urge the committee to take its time while reviewing this bill to avoid any unintended consequences. There are many significant issues within this bill that will impact Canadian businesses.

There are three areas in which CTA thinks Bill C-6 could be improved: the reporting of incidents; preservation of confidential business information; increased alignment of international safety standards and procedures.

As to incident reporting obligations, we recognize that genuine safety issues must be reported to the government in a timely manner. At the same time, our members receive and carefully analyze thousands of reports from consumers each year, the vast majority of which do not raise genuine safety issues. It is important to ensure that the government is promptly notified of safety issues without causing the toy industry to flood the government with every report from consumers around the world.

We have discussed this issue with Health Canada, which recognizes this need for balance. However, CTA believes that Bill C-6 itself should at least provide clear guidance to better inform Health Canada's implementation.

As to preserving confidential business information, Health Canada unquestionably must have the power to disclose information as necessary to protect consumers from danger. At the same time, publication of unsubstantiated consumer reports that have not been investigated properly may give rise to false alarms. This could corrode the credibility of Health Canada and create unnecessary anxiety, or even panic, among consumers. It could also seriously damage good toy companies that have spent years building their reputation.

We urge that Bill C-6 be amended to make clearer the scope of commercial information the minister could disclose, and to require the government to notify a company if and when its confidential information is going to be released.

As to the alignment of international safety standards, the toy industry operates in a global economy. Aligning international safety standards and procedures, which often address the same issues, would benefit regulators, industry, and Canadians. It would eliminate the need to duplicate toy testing where the tests are only slightly different. It would facilitate trade and reduce costs to consumers, and it would enable closer cooperation and enforcement by Health Canada and its counterparts around the world.

Indeed, increased alignment of international standards is an explicit goal of Health Canada. For example, one of the objectives in the 2005 memorandum of understanding between the United States and Health Canada regarding consumer product safety is to make our standard-related measures as compatible as feasible.

While there are many different voluntary and mandatory safety standards for toys, the standards established by the respected International Organization for Standardization, commonly known as ISO, have been adopted in more countries around the world than any other. Even those countries that have set their own standards have turned to variations on the ISO standards. The European Union has largely adopted a variation of those standards, and the United States has recently implemented standards that closely track to the ISO standards as well.

CTA and its members urge Canada to take advantage of the experience reflected in standards already adopted by other countries. Canada, of course, must be free to adopt its own different standards to the extent necessary to protect its youngest citizens, but in light of the advantages of aligning international standards, departures from accepted existing standards should be the exception rather than the rule.

Madam Chair, in summary, the CTA applauds these efforts and supports the principles in Bill C-6. Again, we urge the committee to take its time while reviewing this bill to avoid any unintended consequences.

As we go forward, we want to work with the government to refine and improve the bill in the three areas I mentioned.

First, we request the clarification of reporting objectives. We want to ensure that Health Canada obtains the information it needs to protect consumers but does not, at the same time, create a crippling volume of consumer reports that do not reflect a safety issue.

Second, we request that Bill C-6 ensures that confidential business information is released publicly only to the extent necessary to address a genuine safety risk, and that advance notice be provided to the affected businesses.

Third, we believe Canadian consumers and companies, as well as the government, would benefit greatly from increased alignment with international safety standards and procedures. At the same time, we must preserve our ability to depart from international standards where it is necessary to do so.

On behalf of the CTA members, I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and the other members of the committee for the opportunity to speak here today on a matter that is vitally important to all of us, particularly the CTA and its members.

Arthur and I would be pleased to respond to members' questions at the end.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

And I thank you, Mr. Hurst. It's a real honour to have you here and to hear your comments at committee. We really appreciate it when you come and give us your wisdom. I'm talking about all witnesses, not just you; it's everybody.

We're now going to the Consumers Council of Canada. Lucienne Lemire, are you going to start off?

Thank you.

[Lucienne Lemire, Chair, Health and Food Safety Committee, Consumers Council of Canada]

Thank you for inviting the Consumers Council of Canada to present this brief. I would like to introduce my colleague Gail Campbell, who is director and member of the health committee. My name is Lucienne Lemire, and I am chair of the health committee.

The brief was written in English. Since I'm not gifted enough to provide a simultaneous translation of it, I'm going to present it to you in English.

This is the submission of the Consumers Council of Canada to the Standing Committee on Health with regard to Bill C-6, an act respecting the safety of consumer products.

The Consumers Council of Canada is an independent not-for-profit organization, federally incorporated in 1994 to bring a consumer voice to important local, regional, and national issues. The council works collaboratively with consumers, business, and government to solve marketplace problems. We aim to inform consumers, business, and government alike about their rights and obligations.

Our cooperative, practical engagement contrasts with the more traditional adversarial approaches to advocacy. The council believes it is good business to address consumer issues effectively.

The Consumers Council of Canada believes the provisions proposed in Bill C-6 both support the needs of all stakeholders and establish the key factors necessary for an effective product safety program. The council has identified five major gaps in part of the Hazardous Products Act, the existing product safety legislation, and how Bill C-6 will address these gaps.

The five gaps are as follows: first, the inability to prevent unsafe products from entering the Canadian market; second, the inability to deal with unregulated products or hazards; third, the inability to detect and identify dangerous products at an early stage; fourth, the inability to respond quickly and appropriately to dangerous products; and fifth, the inability to deal with deceptive labels or marks.

I would now like my colleague to explain how we see that the new bill, Bill C-6, addresses these gaps.

[Gail Campbell, Director, Consumers Council of Canada]

Thank you.

We believe that the proposals in Bill C-6 strengthen the government's ability to protect Canadian consumers. The specific changes that the council sees protecting consumers include the prohibition of a manufacturer or importer from manufacturing, importing, distributing, promoting, or marketing a product that is, or is likely to be, a danger to the health or safety of the public.

The change in Bill C-6 also gives the power to compel consumer product recalls, or other corrective measures, and to carry out measures if the industry doesn't cooperate. The ability to order a supplier to remove, recall, or correct a defective product enhances consumer protection by removing the risk posed to consumers.

The legislation also allows an increase in fines and penalties, including administrative monetary penalties. These will deter the existence of dangerous products in the marketplace and enhance consumer confidence in the marketplace.

Finally, the changes will include the requirement of manufacturers and other suppliers to take necessary measures to ensure safety of consumer products. It will ensure the mandatory reporting of defects, adverse defects, and mandatory record-keeping for traceability of products throughout the supply chain. This will help identify dangerous products at an early stage. It further strengthens the accountability of manufacturers for protecting Canadian consumers.

In conclusion, in order for Health Canada to effectively govern the safety of consumer products, it requires the authorities and the tools to detect, assess, and address product hazards readily. Business requires a level playing field and good-quality product safety information to identify hazards, to address product risks, and to comply with regulations.

Consumers also require good-quality product safety information in order to take responsibility for preventing product-related injuries and for maintaining products correctly. The council believes that the provisions proposed for Bill C-6, the Canada consumer product safety act, support the needs of all stakeholders and establish key factors necessary for an effective product safety program.

Thank you so much for allowing us to present, and we'll be happy to answer questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Ms. Campbell and Ms. Lemire, for your insightful presentation.

Okay, we now go on to Geneviève Reed and Anu Bose, from Option consommateurs. I hope I've pronounced that right. You're both here on the list. Who would like to begin?

Geneviève? Thank you.