Health Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You said that you do know that it causes—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Carrie, I'm so sorry, but our time is up.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming today. There has been some very useful testimony. Are there any closing comments that any of you would like to make?

Ms. Cooper.

[Kathleen Cooper]

With respect to that last exchange, cumulative effects are different from chronic toxicity. Cumulative effects are the combined impact of many exposures, which we don't have the methods to determine. Chronic toxicity is the long-term health effect of one substance or a group of substances. That's an important distinction—they aren't the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We want to thank you for coming and for your insightful dialogue this afternoon.

We will now suspend the meeting until 5:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Could everybody please take their seats? It's 5:30 and we do have to start.

We would like to welcome our witnesses today. We have the Canada Safety Council, with Emile Therien, past president. Welcome, Emile.

[Emile Therien, Past President, Canada Safety Council]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We have the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is represented by Corinne Pohlmann, vice-president of national affairs. We have the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Coalition, Ralph Suppa, president. We have Keith Mussar, the chair of the food committee, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. We have the Consumers' Association of Canada, Mel Fruitman. And we have the United Steelworkers, Andrew King, department leader of health, safety, and environment.

Welcome, everyone.

We're going to have seven-minute presentations, and following the presentations we're going to go into two rounds of questioning. The first one will be seven minutes for questions and answers and the second one will be five minutes for questions and answers.

We will start with the Canada Safety Council, with Emile Therien, past president.

[Emile Therien]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm accompanied by Ethel Archard, who also retired from the Canada Safety Council. So you can tell what the council does with their old employees: they keep them busy. Anyway, thank you again for having us.

Globalization and new technologies have led to an influx of products into the Canadian market. The Hazardous Products Act urgently needs to be amended to meet the challenges of the 21st century. But that does not mean we need a brand-new law. The Canada Safety Council recommends that the government build upon the existing act by amending it to address current and future needs. That legislation has been in place for over 40 years, and has served Canadians extremely well--that is, as long as it has been properly resourced and promoted.

In the interest of public health and safety, there is absolutely no need to start from scratch with a new law that may not be fully implemented for many years. The approach that should be taken is to amend the existing Hazardous Products Act. Some of the perceived inadequacies in the act have resulted from the lack of proper enforcement. To be effective, laws must be enforced. This requires the government's commitment to provide resources: financial, human, and otherwise. Effective regulatory oversight is absolutely critical to public safety. I would like to start by noting that when it comes to consumer product safety, imported products are the major offenders.

In early 2007, tainted pet food from China killed thousands of dogs and cats in North America. Later that year, the U.S. recalled 34 million toys and other products made in China due to lead paint and small powerful magnets that children could easily swallow. Based on the U.S. recall, there would have been over three million of the made-in-China products in Canada. Most are likely still in use. Some will find their way into attics and garage sales, and eventually all will end up in landfill sites, at a disastrous cost to our environment. It would make sense to assume that these incidents would have prompted the Canadian government to take action. Obviously, our existing hazardous product laws needed to be enforced with a focus on imports from China. But that is not what happened.

In October 2008, The Toronto Star published an investigative report on toxic toys being sold in the greater Toronto area. The Toronto Star shopped at 18 stores, large and small, and found high levels of lead in one of every four products purchased. Some of the products were even labelled lead-free. One necklace clasp tested at 150 times above the limit. The investigation in The Toronto Star found that there are only 46 inspectors monitoring stores for all of Canada. Of the 13 in Ontario, 11 are in Toronto and two are left to cover the rest of the province.

An importer who travels to Asia four times a year told The Toronto Star that he never sees officials spot-checking any imports whatsoever. An investigative reporter found that out. Truly it is a travesty that the government sees fit to have so few inspectors to protect Canadians from danger from hazardous goods. At that time, the then Minister of Health, Tony Clement, promised more would be hired. It would be interesting to see how many more inspectors there are today than there were in October 2008.

In November 2006 Auditor General Sheila Fraser raised concerns that Canada was failing due to the lack of enforcement to protect Canadians from dangerous products. She questioned whether there was enough funding for enforcement and even whether the government had given it any thought whatsoever. I would like to point out that not one Canadian manufacturer was implicated in dangerous products that hit the Canadian marketplace over the last while. By imposing strict new requirements, Bill C-6 may put Canadian manufacturers at a disadvantage when trying to compete with imports.

The import of dangerous products on a large scale with impunity and over such a long period of time indicates a serious problem with the enforcement of existing law. Passing a new law will not solve this problem. Amendments to existing legislation occur on a regular basis. For example, the House of Commons passed changes to the Criminal Code of Canada in April 2008 to combat cruelty to animals. The proposed anti-gang legislation will be made, if it does occur, through amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, not a brand-new Criminal Code.

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is continually updated through amendments. Bill C-9, an act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act of 1992, was introduced on February 16 of this year. It went through the House of Commons and the Senate and received royal assent on May 14, a couple of weeks ago.

A new law can have unintended negative consequences. The most obvious are the time and resources required. What will happen to product safety during this transition period? Lawyers and experts have already expressed concerns that companies will contest the very high fines in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Such challenges would slow the implementation of long-overdue measures to protect Canadians.

The bottom line is, who is responsible for product safety? Retailers cannot test everything they sell; they must rely on the supplier and ultimately the Canadian government to assure the safety of products entering and being sold in this country.

Product recalls make the consumer responsible to return unsafe products, and they do not remove all the offending products from the marketplace. For the kinds of hazardous products covered in the legislation, most consumers are indifferent to recalls—with the possible exception of high-priced items. Imposing new requirements on Canadian manufacturers will not prevent unsafe imported toys from being sold in this country.

The Hazardous Products Act needs to be updated, but a brand-new law is not needed. What is needed is the amendment of the existing act and a serious commitment to promotion and enforcement.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and Corinne Pohlmann, vice-president.

[Corinne Pohlmann, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you very much, and thanks for the opportunity to be here today.

I must stress at the outset that I'm not a safety expert, nor do I know the details of all the standards, practices, and regulations of the many thousands of businesses my organization represents. But what I can tell you is how a small-business owner may think and react to Bill C-6.

Let me also state at this time that CFIB and our members support the underlying intent of this bill and that consumer safety is of the utmost importance. We believe that governments, industry, consumers all have a role to play to ensure that products purchased by Canadians are safe for them and their families. I also want to point out that CFIB is a member of the Consumer Product Safety Coalition, which of course is going to be here today, and my colleagues next to me will provide you with some recommendations from that group.

You should have in front of you a document from us. You should have a slide deck, which I'm going to walk you through; a copy of a letter we sent to the minister a few months back on this issue; as well as a member profile of CFIB.

Some of you may know that CFIB is a not-for-profit organization that represents the interests of small and medium-sized companies across Canada. We have over 105,000 privately owned and operated Canadian companies as members who collectively employ approximately one and a quarter million Canadians. Our members represent all sectors of the economy, and they are located in all regions of the country.

You should also have a copy in front of you of CFIB's member profile. It's really there to show you how our members are distributed across the country and how many of them are going to be directly affected by this legislation. For example, we have over 30,000 retailers, 8,000 wholesalers, and more than 13,000 manufacturing firms, among others, who may be impacted by this bill.

Most people know this fundamentally, but it's so important to understand the importance of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. Ninety-eight percent of businesses in Canada have fewer than 50 employees. They employ 60% of working Canadians, and they are Canada's primary job creators, especially during these more difficult economic times. These same businesses produce almost half of Canada's economic output today. So it's imperative that the government always be mindful of the impacts of new policies, regulations, or legislation on this group.

CFIB is constantly tracking the issues of highest priority for Canada's small and medium-sized businesses, and the next chart shows the results from the most recent data collected in March of 2009 based on more than 10,000 responses. In this you can see that almost two-thirds cited government regulation and paper burden as an issue of high priority. This is not surprising when you realize that complying with government regulations from all levels of government is costing Canadian businesses approximately $33 billion a year.

But even more important than the total amount spent complying is the fact that the smaller the business, the higher the cost for the business to comply, and this is illustrated on slide 5. This is from a report CFIB did back in 2005, and this data has actually been validated by the OECD as well. It is higher for smaller companies partly because relatively speaking they often have to invest more time and energy to figure out all the rules, as they usually have no staff to do this for them, and partly because many regulations are put together with big business in mind and they do not always factor in whether the same rules are workable for smaller companies.

So part of my intent here today really is to highlight the higher cost borne by smaller companies and to ask that you ensure that this legislation be workable for smaller companies because they make up such a significant part of Canada's economy.

When it comes to Bill C-6, we do worry about the additional burden and complexity this will bring to small and medium-sized companies. This is especially concerning to us after the government's success in reducing paper burden by 22% across 13 departments earlier this year. This exercise actually included Health Canada, which had recorded the highest number of obligations and requirements for businesses among those 13 departments. So we don't want to lose this momentum that's been created by this exercise, and we hope this new legislation and its associated regulations and policies will follow the paper burden reduction principles, which were that any policy has to be designed to balance business needs with the need to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

One way to do this more effectively, though, is to require some measurement that will help policy-makers and legislators understand whether the legislation is working as intended or if it's causing unintended consequences. Requiring ongoing measurement and public reporting of those measurements keeps a check and balance of the system, and allows for adjustments as needed along the way.

How else can governments help small businesses to comply? The next slide shows some ideas from SMEs themselves. Clearly communicating new regulations, providing examples of compliance, and improving government customer service are just some of the practical ways SMEs have identified will help them to better comply. SMEs are small and medium-sized enterprises. CFIB has already met with Health Canada several times to provide this kind of feedback, and we have agreed to work with them on implementation as this is when SMEs will experience the greatest impact.

So CFIB has some very general concerns with the legislation. We also have some very specific concerns we'd like to see addressed, and my colleagues in the coalition will touch on these in more detail.

First, we believe that incident reporting and documentation preparation timelines are too short, and it is not very clear when the two-day requirement to report kicks in. This needs to be clarified, as smaller companies may end up sending far too much or not enough information to Health Canada, if this is not better defined.

It's also important to remember that many if not most small companies will not likely have the capacity to carry out an investigation of a consumer complaint or conduct a risk assessment. What would be expected of these types of businesses in such circumstances must be made clear.

Secondly, there needs to be some time limit as to how long a business is required to keep records. Most other departments, including the Canada Revenue Agency, put a limit on how long a business needs to keep records. We would suggest five years.

There also needs to be clarity on what is meant by “prescribed documents”. We suggest that examples be provided to smaller companies so that they better understand what it means. We would also suggest that any such documents be limited to documents already in the possession of a business and not require new forms to be filled out every time a product is produced, imported, or sold.

We also have concerns that the legislation provides inspectors with very broad powers to conduct inspections and impose seizures, stop orders, and recalls. These broad powers must be balanced with some procedural safeguards, so that inspectors are accountable for their actions as well--for example, requiring them to provide advance notification of a seizure or a stop order; providing an opportunity for a business to respond; time limits for a stop order; or a process for recovery of seized items.

In addition, given the magnitude of the mandatory recall order and its possible implications for a company, only the minister should have the authority to issue mandatory recall orders, as is already the case with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and this should only be after the business has been given an opportunity to voluntarily recall the product.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of protecting the confidentiality of business information when sharing this information with other countries. We recognize that there may be a need for Health Canada to quickly share information when there is an imminent threat; however, businesses should be given advance notice that their business information is to be shared, and an opportunity to validate and correct that information. This information should also be restricted only to information necessary to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

In conclusion, CFIB supports the underlying objective of this bill to protect Canadian consumers and products that may pose a danger to their safety; however, we all know that the devil is in the details, so it will be imperative for Health Canada to effectively implement and clearly communicate what is required.

I ask that when you're going through the details of this bill you put on the hat of a small-business owner simply trying to run a business in this more difficult economy, attempting to comply with all the various rules and requirements that are out there from all levels of government. Think about how the bill will be workable for them, so that they can be more effective in helping to protect consumers.

Thank you for the opportunity to present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you. Your slide presentation was very clear and very good—you could see it in one glance—and your presentation was extremely good.

We will now go to the Consumer Product Safety Coalition, with Mr. Ralph Suppa, president.

[Ralph Suppa, President, Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, Consumer Product Safety Coalition]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

I am the spokesperson for the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Coalition. I also have a full-time job as the president and general manager of the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating.

Consumer safety is a paramount goal for members of the coalition, and we appreciate this opportunity to speak to the committee on Bill C-6. Joining me is Keith Mussar of the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. He has a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Waterloo, and he will assist me in answering members' questions.

This coalition is composed of 13 major national business associations representing total annual sales in the $600-billion range. They are engaged in every aspect of the process that results in products being made available to Canadian consumers. Coalition member companies include domestic manufacturers, importers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers. Committee members will appreciate that the interests of our coalition members in the provisions of Bill C-6 are acute and all-encompassing. Member companies are located in all parts of Canada. Their ability to generate positive economic activity at the local level is widespread, and a significant percentage of these companies are small and medium-sized enterprises.

Coalition members are responsible corporate citizens and are vitally concerned about product safety. Member companies have increased their investment in product safety throughout the product development and certification process, and actively participate in our national infrastructure system of codes and standards that are health- and safety-based and governed by the Standards Council of Canada.

The coalition supports the government's initiative to update Canada's consumer product safety law. We welcome this continued meaningful opportunity to work with the government and Health Canada to refine Bill C-6. We firmly believe in an industry-government partnership.

There are five areas in which the coalition believes Bill C-6 could be improved: one, reporting of safety related incidents; two, preservation of confidential business information; three, mandatory recall orders; four, orders for stop-sale, testing studies, and information compilation; and five, 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 product safety issues. It is important to ensure that the government is promptly notified of safety issues—without creating impossible deadlines and causing industry to flood the government with non-useful reports from consumers around the world. We have discussed this concern with Health Canada and they recognize this need for balance. However, the coalition believes that Bill C-6 itself should provide clearer guidance to better inform Health Canada's implementation of Bill C-6. Specifically, reports of incidents should not be required until there has been an opportunity to determine their validity and relevance to the existence of a possible defect, unreasonable condition, or substantial hazard.

As to preserving confidential business information, Health Canada absolutely 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 compromise the credibility of Health Canada and create unnecessary anxiety or even panic among consumers. It would also seriously damage responsible 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 and receive its response, if possible, before its company-specific and confidential information is released.

Clause 30 gives inspectors broad authority to issue mandatory recall orders. Because of the gravity and serious implications of this remedy, only the minister should have the authority to issue mandatory recall orders. Moreover, a company should be given every opportunity to recall a product voluntarily. It should be notified and given an opportunity to respond before the minister issues a mandatory recall order. Finally, if a mandatory recall order is issued, there should be an opportunity for review.

Several clauses of the bill call for inspections, testing, and, more important, stop-sale and import orders to be issued without any attempt to notify and receive responses from affected businesses. Certainly, the coalition and any legitimate businesses believe that, if no responsible party can be identified in a timely manner, then the government should have these powers to act in the case of an imminent danger. But in many cases, there is sufficient time for prior notice and some type of response from the affected party. Therefore, a measure of reasonableness and an opportunity for legitimate businesses to respond and work with the government is required.

As to the alignment of international safety standards, coalition members operate in a global marketplace, and an alignment with international safety standards and procedures—which often address the same issues—would benefit regulators, industry, and Canadians in the following manner: it would eliminate the need to duplicate 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. While there are many different voluntary and mandatory safety standards for consumer products, the coalition and its members urge Canada to take advantage of the experience reflected in standards already adopted by other countries, such as those established by the respected International Organization for Standardization.

Canada, of course, must be free to adopt its own, different standards to the extent necessary to protect all Canadians.

Madam Chair, in summary, the coalition applauds these efforts and supports the principles in Bill C-6. We want to work with the government to continue to refine and improve the bill in three principal areas.

First, we request clarification of reporting obligations. We want to ensure that Health Canada obtains the information it needs to protect consumers while not creating a crippling volume of consumer reports that do not reflect a real, actionable safety issue.

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

Finally, we believe that Canadian consumers and companies, as well as the government, would benefit greatly from increased alignment of international safety standards and procedures.

The coalition has submitted a detailed report, including recommendations on the specific clauses of the bill I have referred to in my remarks, and I understand these have been forwarded to the members serving on the committee.

On behalf of our 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 Canadians, the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Coalition, and its member companies.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Suppa.

We'll now go to the Consumers' Association of Canada, with Mr. Fruitman, vice-president.

[Mel Fruitman, Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Consumers' Association of Canada is a 62-year-old, independent, not-for-profit, volunteer-based organization, with a national office in Ottawa, and provincial and territorial representatives. Our mandate is to inform and educate consumers on marketplace issues, to advocate for consumers with government and industry, and to work with government and industry to solve marketplace problems in beneficial ways.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-6. We are pleased to see the introduction of this important piece of consumer legislation, after more than two decades of relative inattention by all levels of government, and we urge you to help hasten its passage.

The current legislation came into being almost 40 years ago during a period when consumer activism reached its peak. It was then that people began to realize that there was a huge imbalance in the marketplace—consumers were entering into transactions with increasingly sophisticated business operators. At that time, legislation was simply playing catch-up with all of the economic, financial, and demographic developments that had occurred since the end of World War II.

In the interval, Canada has seen changes that are just as dramatic, if not more so. We have become a nation of consumers made up of many ethnic backgrounds, living in various economic circumstances and carrying various levels of debt. Where we used to eat mostly locally produced food and buy products that may have been manufactured by our neighbours, we now purchase a huge range of goods of increased complexity, the majority of which come from outside the country. Even many of our services are outsourced. The balance has again tilted dramatically so that Canadian consumers are at a disadvantage in the marketplace. With the proliferation of new products, most Canadians feel that our health and safety has been compromised. This impression has been reinforced by items such as tainted toothpaste, lead paint in toys, tainted seafood, salmonella, and listeriosis outbreaks.

This leads me to two of the most significant provisions in Bill C-6. One is the change from the proscriptive regime of the Hazardous Products Act, in which only listed or designated products were covered, to a results-based regime, which prohibits the supply to consumers of products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety. The results-based regime gives us the flexibility to meet changing market conditions and to react immediately when a threat is identified, rather than having to go through a lengthy regulatory process.

The second provision flows from the first. In the past, when a hazardous product was identified, the minister could do nothing more than, in effect, go cap in hand and ask the supplier to recall the offending item. If the supplier did not voluntarily do so, the minister was powerless to force the action. Thus many products that should not have been offered for sale remained on retailers' shelves. Now the government will be able to remove and recall offending products, without relying on the good conscience of the supplier, and will even be able to cause action to be taken at the supplier's expense, should the response be inadequate or untimely.

This bill also provides for fines and penalties to be brought to bear for non-compliance. This is something that was sorely missing in all previous legislation and is needed to encourage appropriate behaviour. Additionally, the establishment of a mechanism for mandatory reporting of adverse events and incidents will help establish an early-warning system, identifying problems much sooner in their sale cycle.

The Consumers' Association recognizes that there will be a learning process on the part of all participants, and the sooner we get started the better. Given the current economic downturn, sales of consumer goods have declined somewhat. While some may argue that this reduces the urgency for passage of the bill, it is feared that this climate may encourage some suppliers to cut corners in order to retain profitability.

With the passage of Bill C-6, the Canadian government will have taken a big step towards improving consumer protection. Once this has been done, the Consumers' Association of Canada suggests that the government, through this and other appropriate committees, give consideration to raising the status of Canadian consumers and their marketplace needs. Nowhere in Canada, either provincially or federally, is there a cabinet-level department devoted solely to consumer protection. Where there is an agency with this responsibility, it is always combined with some other function, which is often inappropriate. When Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada was broken up many years ago, many of its functions were hived off to other departments, with a rump group known as the Office of Consumer Affairs establishing itself in Industry Canada. Perhaps most inappropriately, food safety came under the aegis of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which reports through the Minister of Agriculture, who is also responsible for promoting the sale of foodstuffs.

That was an aside to make us think about something for the future. But once again, I urge the committee to help effect early passage of Bill C-6 and bring Canadian consumer protection into the 21st century.

I tried to be very brief and highlight some of our main considerations. Thank you for listening. I'll be pleased to try to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fruitman.

We'll hear from Mr. Andrew King before we go into the question period. Andrew King is the department leader from the United Steelworkers.

Sir, would you like to give your presentation?

[Andrew King, Department Leader, Health, Safety and Environment, United Steelworkers]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present today.

I have provided a copy of my comments. I apologize to you that they are not also available in French, but I should let you know that I found out yesterday about noon that I would be here this afternoon.

I appreciate the amount of work you've been involved in with regard to this very important legislation and have taken the time to review the comments of people who have come before you.

By way of background, the United Steelworkers is an international union, with members across Canada and the United States. In Canada our union is very diverse, with members in almost every sector of the economy.

As our name implies, we have a long history in mining, steelmaking, metalworking, and manufacturing. From that history, we have a lot of experience with toxic chemicals and the diseases they cause. We were involved in bringing WHMIS, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, into Canada in the 1980s, and to this day we are still dealing with the impacts of chemical exposures on our members and their communities. Recent occupational disease clinics in Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury attracted hundreds of people. We are supporters of the recent Ontario Toxic Chemicals Reduction Act, currently in third reading, as well as community right to know at the municipal level.

The toxicity of many of the chemicals we are concerned about in the environment and consumer products today was originally demonstrated in the lives of workers and the damage it did to their health. Many of the strategies that speak of controlling exposures, limiting risk instead of advising hazards, and personal protection responsibility were tried and failed in the occupational setting. Years ago we were told there were safe limits of exposures to most chemicals. Since then exposure limits have become lower and lower, as studies continue to show there is no safe level of exposure to toxic chemicals, especially if the exposure is repeated and over a lifetime.

We need to talk about the total burden of chemicals in our bodies from all sources, including the environment. This government's and the Ontario government's investment in green chemistry innovation at Queen's University in Kingston is recognition that we have to find a better way to produce the chemicals we need.

Our membership was deeply moved in 2007 when a wave of toxic toys hit Canada, many of which were contaminated by lead. After a decade of fighting in North America to have lead removed from paints and gasoline, after decades of controlling the exposure in smelters, mills, and other industries, something is wrong when the system allows lead to be used in consumer products.

Some of us still remember that it was the impact of our children originally being exposed to lead in communities in Canada in the 1960s that gave impetus to the regular reform that reduced those exposures and gave us the legislation we're reviewing now.

It did not seem right to us that such a well-known hazard should be allowed back into Canada by trade. Our activists became involved in a Get the Lead Out campaign across Canada and the U.S., adding our voice to others who felt that something had to be done. Product safety must not be left to voluntary systems and the luck of the draw.

I might say in parenthesis here that we were quite astounded at the response we got from our members. We have a long history and involvement in occupational health and safety and activists who are trained to deal with those issues, but it wasn't those activists who responded to the problem of toxic toys. It was the average member, the member who had children, particularly women, who were at the forefront of making this an issue for our organization and making it a key point in a campaign that led us to distributing information and becoming part of what was originally the movement toward Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, and now Bill C-6.

We are also encouraged to be here by our environmental partner, Environmental Defence. Aaron Freeman, the research director, has already addressed you. Our alliance with Environmental Defence focuses on the impacts of toxic chemicals and climate change. Environmental Defence's “Toxic Nation” campaign has shown that the challenge we face is much bigger than we think. It confirms the experiences of workers that the chemicals are in our bodies now. We are here to support their efforts and their position--and of many of the other environmental groups that I note have already spoken to you--that we need to reduce exposures through consumer products.

To quote the title of the book that Environmental Defence's chair and executive director recently co-authored, we must prevent Death by Rubber Duck,, a book that I highly recommend to each of you if you have not had a chance to review it.

To the point of our remarks regarding Bill C-6, like many others who have appeared before you, and most of the people here this evening, we support the goal and objectives of the bill. It is important that there be a mandatory reporting system for toxins and hazards in consumer products and a clear system for enforcement. While the bill has a number of these important features, it needs to be strengthened in order to achieve its goals as described in the preamble.

In particular, we support amendments suggested by Environmental Defence. Strengthening the bill now will benefit us all in the long run. The bill provides strong language regarding prohibition, but is weak in identifying the problems proactively and sets the bar for action too high.

The bill needs a proactive system of inspection and verification. In this regard, I note the previous evidence that was given by Mr. Glover on behalf of the government in regard to this bill. He in fact spoke about the bill having a proactive nature to it. I must confess to being surprised that he characterized it that way, because it seems to me the system, with all the improvements proposed, is still fundamentally reactive. Until someone discovers a problem--inadvertently, if something has happened, or if a group of doctors notice it in their patients--nothing is done. There is no system through which to go and get proactive information. And that, particularly when you're dealing with imports, which, as was previously noted, are a key part of this problem, needs to be part of the system.

What is needed is an administrative system to ensure that manufacturers and importers--and I emphasize them in particular--are testing their supply chain to make sure toxic chemicals are not getting into the products. The government needs a system of independent verification through random reviews. A testing protocol is required to protect consumers and to raise the bar for company testing. Without that protection, the legislation is at risk of encouraging "Don't ask, don't tell".

We strongly believe that there needs to be the policing function as outlined in the act. In addition, however, we believe there needs to be an administrative review program to ensure that the highest levels of performance and protection are being followed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You're quite over time, Mr. King. Could you try to wrap up, please?

[Andrew King]

Thank you. I have just a couple more points to make.

The standard of proof required for action under Bill C-6 is too restrictive, providing little beyond what the common law provides through the right to sue, and contradicting the preamble of the bill that calls for the application of the precautionary principle. I have quoted the preamble—which I'm sure you're well aware of—and contrasted that to the test of danger to human health and safety to demonstrate the point.

Any hazard without transparency or disclosure is unreasonable. At a minimum, the standards must protect children from chemical assault through the products to which they are exposed. Proof of harm or likelihood of harm is no protection for children. The story of lead here again is cautionary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, Mr. King, but we do have your presentation in front of us. I'm going to give you one more chance to just wrap it up if you would, because we are way over time with your presentation.

[Andrew King]

The third point I would leave you with is to emphasize the case that others have made with regard to the importance of labelling to provide that information in advance. In the presentation, I've suggested two examples for how that could be achieved.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You certainly gave a wonderful presentation with some very insightful information. I thank you for that.

Now I would ask Ms. Murray to begin the question period.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, everybody. Thank you for your interest and for assisting us in having good public policy with this bill.

In the previous panel there was a lot of discussion about whether hazards the public should be protected against should include chronic toxicity and therefore should include carcinogens or compounds that would impact reproductive health. It was pointed out that measures are in place in California, in other places, and in Europe.

I have a question regarding the statment on page 4 of the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Coalition brief. Would it make sense, then, when you're calling for an increased alignment of international safety standards and procedures—something I spoke about directly earlier because I think that's important for small business and large business alike—to include the phase-out of carcinogens and endocrine disruptors in parallel or harmonized with the regimes that do that in different countries, in Europe, or in California?

[Ralph Suppa]

Madam Chair, may I refer that to Mr. Mussar?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Mussar, would you like to comment on that?

[Keith Mussar, Chair, Food Committee, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, Consumer Product Safety Coalition]

Yes.

Thank you very much for the question.

First I'd like to spend a bit of time reminding the members--and I'm sure others have done this--of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and the chemicals management plan, which Canada currently is leading the world in implementing.

Under those provisions are two things we need to keep in mind. First is the fact that under the chemicals management plan and CEPA 1999, Parliament has required that we evaluate the environmental and human health and safety of all the existing substances that are currently in use in Canada. In addition and subsequent to that, there are provisions for the new substances notification process, which is a pre-market approval process in Canada. We are the only jurisdiction in the world that has those.

More importantly, however, the other thing that CEPA 1999 and the chemicals management plan require of government and industry is a mandatory requirement through regulation for risk management procedures to be put in place. That couples two things: the hazard assessment, with industry taking progressive action against that.