Evidence of meeting #23 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chemicals.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Excuse me. I get the gist of your answer. I only have a short amount of time.
I could learn about CEPA, and that's useful, but I presume what you're saying is that no, you don't think this should be part of Bill C-6.
6:10 p.m.
Chair, Food Committee, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, Consumer Product Safety Coalition
I don't believe it should be part of Bill C-6 because I think there are other regulatory avenues by which we're already achieving that effect.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Could I hear a quick answer from anyone else who has a view? I assume the Steelworkers would say yes, because it supported their health.
6:10 p.m.
Department Leader, Health, Safety and Environment, United Steelworkers
Well, certainly you're right in this particular context. CMP is a different strategy for different purposes.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Okay, thank you.
And Mr. Therien, you have no particular...?
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
The other thing there has been discussion about, which I'm certainly trying to wrap my head around, is the issue of importing. It seems the onus would be on the government, when something is being imported, to figure out if it's hazardous.
One of the speakers said we need a serious commitment to promotion and enforcement. Other presenters have talked about Bill C-6 proposals being too weak in terms of the importation, and that it should really be the importers who are responsible to certify that their products meet the standards in Canada.
Could somebody comment on that? Is that too onerous? Is that realistic? Who should be responsible--government or the importers--in terms of protecting Canadians and kids from these hazards?
6:10 p.m.
Department Leader, Health, Safety and Environment, United Steelworkers
We suggested a combination of both. There should be a pre-testing requirement or certification from the importer that they have done their due diligence, they have checked out their supply chain, and the product they are importing to Canada does not include things that are prohibited or that will cause ill health, whatever the act ends up with. But there also needs to be some system by which that is checked--not in every case. There are different programs. In occupational health and in other areas strategies are used, which the government, or an independent body supervised by the government, has to be responsible for to make sure that's done. Otherwise, you're left with the results.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Department Leader, Health, Safety and Environment, United Steelworkers
That's right. That's our position.
6:15 p.m.
Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
I was simply going to say that when you think about a small business that imports, there needs to be some assistance from government, perhaps, to say that these are the types of companies that are available to you that do or do not have the right products. I think a combination has to be put in place, because it's very difficult for a smaller company to necessarily get that due diligence in place to understand who it is they're supposed to deal with. It might become so difficult they decide it's not worth it for them and they're not going to go down that road because it's just too difficult for them to understand. And if they do go down that road and it still comes in as lead and they've done their due diligence, what happens to them? It's not worth the risk.
That's where we start getting concerned about what the impact of this bill could be on a smaller company that might be looking at trying to get into a new market or trying to bring products in from a new market and what this bill might prevent them from doing.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
So you would support them being responsible, but you see that there would need to be some tools and some guidance provided.
6:15 p.m.
Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Absolutely. There needs to be much better communication of where they need to go, what standards are expected, how they can go about figuring that out, and if there needs to be testing there's help on where that testing has to be done, such as for lead in a product.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Nicolas Dufour Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thanks also to the witnesses for being here.
A little earlier, we received another group of witnesses made up of people from the industry. They were from Consumer Health Products Canada. They talked about confidentiality clauses. Last week, we had Jeff Hurst, representing the Canadian Toy Association. He also talked about confidentiality clauses. I feel that this is extremely important. As I said earlier, there has to be a less extreme position than one that lets the minister make a unilateral decision to publish confidential information without even talking to you.
Ms. Pohlmann, I find it interesting to hear you tell us that SMEs hire about 60% of the workforce in Canada. We talked about companies with credibility and dependability because of the length of time for which they have been doing business, and we also said that they could easily handle a problem arising from the publication of confidential documents. But it could be much more damaging for SMEs just starting up, given their manufacturing techniques or the products they use.
Do you think that companies should be given a certain number of hours so that they can familiarize themselves with the minister's file on their defective components? You have to have time to react and to get ready. Could you tell me what you think about having the time to get ready?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, Consumer Product Safety Coalition
I'll try to respond very briefly.
It all goes back to the severity of the hazard. It's difficult to pinpoint the timing based on what's going to be disclosed. As I mentioned, we want to work with the government to disclose confidential information where it is appropriate, but again, we don't want to rise to false alarms that don't make sense and that could compromise the credibility of Health Canada. We want to work with them in that regard, but we need to understand what that trigger point is to appreciate that it can't be hours, because you have to go back to your supplier. You have to understand the timelines. Your staff have to be trained to understand what they need to do. So it isn't as cut and dried as to say, is a couple of hours the right approach? That's something on which we're still dialoguing with Health Canada.
6:20 p.m.
Department Leader, Health, Safety and Environment, United Steelworkers
Thank you for the question.
I think part of the problem is in the language we use, because it's hard to understand from my perspective what the confidentiality issue is dealing with this. “Confidentiality” is a broad word.
A trade secret I understand; it is something that's special in a process. From our experience dealing with WHMIS, the workplace hazardous materials information system, we have a device whereby that problem can be addressed. If someone is asserting that there is a trade secret involved or something will be disclosed that will have an impact on their business, there is a vehicle through which that can be addressed, but it has to be demonstrated that's the issue.
To get to your point, before you can cause the minister to back off, there has to be a clear demonstration that there is something secret actually being protected. Is it a secret that you have lead in your paint on a toy? No. So it really does have to be some specific example.
6:20 p.m.
Past President, Canada Safety Council
Thank you.
The question is on the severity of the risk. Technically it becomes a judgment call, and those calls will have to be made, absolutely no question about it. I'm very sensitive about creating standards. We're talking about the majority of Canadians who are really employed by small enterprises. It's no longer government motors and Ford that employ most of the people in this country, so I'm very sensitive to that. There are tremendous onerous requirements for small businesses to comply with municipal regulations, provincial, federal. It goes on and on and on, so let's make it easy on them, but also reasonable. They also have to realize there are requirements for compliance.
