Health Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You have another minute and a half, Mr. Dufour.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much.

A little earlier, we talked about the human and financial resources needed to ensure compliance with the act.

Mr. King, you said something very interesting. You said that nothing had been done in a proactive way and that there should be a system of testing. But the problem arises because there is a critical lack of inspectors. Do you think that we can do something to ease this lack of inspectors?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who'd like to take that question, anybody on the panel?

Mr. King.

[Andrew King]

I very strongly concur. As was mentioned earlier, part of the problem is that there are not enough inspectors. There's also not a requirement that there be a strategy to utilize the inspection resources effectively in the mandate of the act. I think it's the two things together. I believe earlier testimony said the number has gone up from 46 to 52, I think you heard on a previous occasion. Clearly, there need to be more resources added.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Mussar, would you just like to make a brief comment?

[Keith Mussar]

The other thing that might be worth keeping in mind is that there are some other initiatives that might also help in providing some tools to help us work through this, particularly on the import side. Canada Border Services Agency is working on the single-window initiative, which is a communication initiative and risk assessment initiative between them and the other government departments, including Health Canada. There's also the e-manifest initiative, as well as the ACI, the commercial initiative. There are a number of other initiatives that, in conjunction with this, may provide some useful tools that will help the inspectorate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you very much.

I apologize for being away, but with Bill C-32, an act to amend the Tobacco Act, being up at the same time, it's a bit of a conflict. I'm sorry I missed all of your presentations.

Let me go to Andrew King first of all, and let me ask you about WHMIS. We had news through our estimates process that in fact the government was cutting $2.6 million over two years out of WHMIS, which I understand kills the national centre through Health Canada. I guess I'd like to know the impact of that in terms of this act and its intentions, especially since the government is trying to suggest that the GHS will pick up the slack, yet at the same time, Health Canada has not moved to reintroduce substances that have been excluded from WHMIS. So in fact we have a watered-down GHS approach and a neutered WHMIS program.

[Andrew King]

Wow. I think the response that was given by a previous witness on the question of using GHS as an alternative to putting labelling in the act is well stated. We've been hearing about this for a long time. There have been all sorts of things that have stood in the way. It may not achieve the objectives in terms of consumer protection that we want to achieve with this bill, so that's why this bill needs to have very clear rules with respect to labelling.

The cuts with respect to WHMIS and other problems with the WHMIS are contradictory to the other activities that seem to be going on in the government in terms of chemical management, whether it be CMP or other vehicles to break down WHMIS, which is a core piece of that process and the only one that allows workers to participate in identifying the chemicals they're dealing with. It's truly a shame and something that needs to be addressed. I think to the extent it has relevance to this bill, it reinforces the need to ensure there is clear language here with respect to what will be reported to the public.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

So you would be supportive of our intention to introduce an amendment to put back into this bill what was in Bill C-52 before, requiring the minister to report publicly information about any problems pertaining to consumer products?

[Andrew King]

Yes.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Is there anyone on the panel who would object to that, the minister's obligation to report to the public?

[Ralph Suppa]

Madam Chair, if I may, I think it should be after it has been substantiated and not right when it happens, because you've got to go through the process of making sure it was a legitimate concern. We need to keep that in mind.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you.

Let me go back now to the issue of imports. I'll start with you, Mr. King, and anyone else who would like to answer.

I don't think this bill has satisfactorily dealt with the surveillance of imports. We heard from Mr. Arthur Kazianis, who is with the Canadian Toy Association, that in fact in the United States it's mandatory to have testing done by a third party for any products coming into the country. We don't have that in Canada, and nothing in this bill suggests it, so I'm wondering if we shouldn't be trying, through this bill, to include a requirement to have some obligation, whether it's through a cost-recovery basis or not, for testing of products coming into this country.

[Andrew King]

That's the heart of the first of the recommendations that we make, which I tried to make in our presentation. It has already been noted that the biggest challenge for us in Canada has been the imports, and really the only way you can have assurances to try to prevent that in advance, to be proactive, is to have some form of mandatory pre-testing, and some form of certification provided that indeed it has followed through the supply chain, and is not just someone saying they didn't add anything knowingly, but that they've done their due diligence on the supply side. So we would very strongly urge the committee to include within the bill the authority to require that for imports of consumer products.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Does anybody object to some sort of inspection and surveillance of products coming into this country?

[Ralph Suppa]

Madam Chair, I think we need to be cautious with this approach, because we already have some industries that are regulated. For example, my industry, the plumbing and heating industry, is regulated through a third party. If you bring in or manufacture products overseas, they must meet Canadian requirements before they can be installed, because if you build a home the inspector will look for that certification mark. If a product doesn't have that mark, they will not allow it to be installed. In some cases, standards may not exist, so it's not a one model fits all. You have to look at where these issues are concerning and then work with that particular industry to see what makes sense.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Fair enough.

I was particularly thinking of the controversy over toys coming in from China, where there are sort of voluntary agreements but there is no testing, and we have had a flood of products on the market that may not be safe.

[Emile Therien]

I'm aware that the staff of the Consumer Products Safety Agency, and even the commissioner, was dead against this independent third-party testing agency in the United States. I think one of the recent presidents.... It's a source of controversy, to the point where the Consumer Products Safety Agency used to hire one toy tester, or whatever he's called, and that job has been eliminated. So there is nobody on board who really deals with that issue.

I think another point is that it's important to remember that a lot of products that are imported into this country are certified by either CSA or UL or whatever. The issue there is that some are counterfeit, but most of them I think are very legitimate products. So there is a standard they comply with when they arrive on our shores.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Therien.

We'll now go to Ms. McLeod.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think I'll stick with some of my previous issues in terms of the labelling. We certainly heard from Mr. King clearly how he felt about things. So we've heard from many witnesses wanting us to be emulating California Proposition 65, and there was the example brought forward by the Canadian Environmental Law Association of an extension cord with the notice, “this contains lead, you must wash your hands”. So we need to really be looking at labelling anything that has potentially a carcinogen.

I would really appreciate hearing from the small-business perspective, both from Ms. Pohlmann and Mr. Suppa, and anyone else if there's time. Will that create issues? Are the members you represent comfortable with this kind of approach?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Sure. Labeling would be, I think, a big issue for small and medium-sized companies, simply because it would bring a level of complexity into the system.

Our big issue when it comes to new legislation or regulations or policies is that we need to make sure that we're measuring their effectiveness. When you look at Proposition 65, which I know has been brought up many times, I don't know how much evidence is actually out there that it actually has been effective in helping Californians be safer or have a lower incidence of cancer.

We want to make sure that when you're creating new rules, regulations, or laws, you're doing it in a way that's going to be effective in achieving what you want as an outcome.

Labeling, from the small-business perspective, I think would discourage a lot of small businesses from moving into certain areas and markets. I think it would then likely become the purview of much larger companies. It would have to sort of come under their umbrella, because small companies wouldn't necessarily have the wherewithal to understand all the different things they need to do. It would create a big headache for government to try to find all those companies to figure out what exactly they're labeling correctly.

I think it could cause a lot more problems. I'm not so sure you would necessarily get the benefit you want from doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Go ahead, Ms. McLeod.

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

Mr. Mussar would like to answer this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Mussar.