:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name is Kim Ayotte, and I am a chief officer with Ottawa Fire Services. I am here today, however, representing the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the government relations committee.
The CAFC counts as its members over 1,000 fire chiefs located in every province and territory. Overwhelmingly, like me, its members are municipal public servants with the mandate of protecting the lives and property of citizens of the various communities. Within our membership, we also have fire chiefs from industry; airports; other institutions, such as universities and hospitals; armed forces; and many of the country's first nations. No other association can claim this breadth of support, making CAFC truly the voice of fire services in Canada.
The throne speech of October 2007 contained the following statement that was most welcome to Canadian fire services:
Our Government shares the concern of parents about the safety of consumer products and food. Canadians should expect the same standards of quality from imported goods as they do from products made at home. The Government will introduce measures on food and product safety to ensure that families have confidence in the quality and safety of what they buy.
The CAFC stated its support for the throne speech announcement. It supported Bill and it supports Bill . The primary reason for our strong endorsement of Bill C-6 is stated in our brief, which I'd like to state for the record today.
A significant percentage of responses for every fire department has important consumer product safety implications. Stovetop fires, electrical fires, electrocutions, accidental poisonings, strangulations, and the careless use of candles as well as matches and lighters are a few examples in this regard.
Special mention, however, should be made for the increasing use of chemical compositions in residential furnishings and clothing. Our submission points out that counterfeiting is a serious consumer product safety problem. The use of counterfeit certification marks enables unsafe and deficient products to gain widespread access to the market, and are a direct risk to consumers.
In addition, we are deeply concerned about the vast quantities of cigarettes being imported into this country that do not meet the low ignition propensity standards that CAFC, Health Canada, and the standing committee worked diligently and cooperatively to enact. These illegal cigarettes are far more likely to remain ignited when unattended, and are therefore products that not only threaten the consumers of such cigarettes; they also jeopardize innocent third parties.
Clauses 6 through 9 of Bill require that no person shall manufacture, import, advertise, or sell a consumer product that is a danger to human health and safety. The CAFC believes the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act will be useful in combatting counterfeit products and illegal products that are currently available to Canadians.
Some submissions that have been presented to the standing committee call for amendments to Bill . To the degree that these amendments are being offered with a view to improving these provisions, they are welcomed by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. However, to the degree that they will weaken the bill, and are intended to unnecessarily delay its implementation, we trust that the standing committee will not support them.
Officials at Health Canada and the members of the standing committee are all to be congratulated when it's considered how far we have come towards improving consumer product safety since October of 2007.
On behalf of our association, I want you to know that I truly appreciate the opportunity you've given me to speak here today. I look forward to receiving your questions.
Thank you.
:
Thanks very much for the invitation to be here. Joining me today is Dr. Chantal Kealey. She is the director of audiology with CASLPA.
First, I'd like to explain a little bit about what CASLPA is, our 5,400 members across the country, and what they do. CASLPA is the only national body that supports and represents the professional needs of speech language pathologists, audiologists, and supportive personnel. In doing so, we support our members in maximizing the communication and hearing potential of the people of Canada. Prevention is a key role in this regard.
I think it's worth highlighting the role of audiologists. Audiologists are hearing health professionals who identify, diagnose, and manage individuals with peripheral or central hearing loss, tinnitus, and balance disorders. Audiologists, speech language pathologists, and supportive personnel play an active role in promoting hearing health and in encouraging government policy to ensure that Canadians don't needlessly suffer from permanent hearing damage.
As part of this, CASLPA audiologists have paid particular attention to the hearing health of children, especially as it relates to the safety of children's toys. CASLPA firmly believes that with Bill the government is moving in the right direction to ensure that the products we have in our homes are safe. It does so by placing an onus on manufacturers to ensure that their products are safe and by giving government the power and capacity to make sure this happens.
Putting the onus on industry to ensure product safety is a welcome change from the status quo and helps to encourage a culture of safety for those who make and sell goods to people in Canada. Giving the minister power to order safety tests on products and, when needed, mandatory recalls ensures that the government is able to respond quickly when problems do arise. Doubling the number of inspectors--the eyes and ears of consumer safety legislation--increases the government's ability to anticipate and respond to consumer product issues.
In short, CASLPA firmly believes that Bill is a step in the right direction for consumer product safety, but there are other steps to take specifically as this relates to children's toys. Absent from Bill is a commitment to reduce the acceptable decibel level for toys from the current 100 decibels to a level more in line with international standards, such as the World Health Organization standard of 75 decibels.
Choking hazards and lead in toys may be more apparent dangers to the public. The danger of noisy toys is often trivialized or dismissed as just annoying to parents, but the danger these toys pose is very real and can cause permanent hearing damage.
On this issue, there are two important considerations: how the amount of permissible noise is measured and how much noise is actually safe for children's small ear canals. Currently, schedule I of the Hazardous Products Act limits the amount of noise children's toys can make to 100 decibels, measured at arm's length. This is markedly higher than the 75 decibels suggested by the WHO. Also, the International Organization for Standardization has recommended that close-to-the-ear toys not exceed 65 decibels.
As a contrast, in a workplace, exposure to 100 decibels would only be considered safe for 15 minutes, and that's for adults. Children, because of their smaller ear canals, are more susceptible to the effects of noise.
What's more, how government currently measures a toy's sound often underestimates its actual effect. As mentioned, currently sound is measured at arm's length. It is no secret that during the routine course of play children will hold toys substantially closer than that, increasing the toy's relative noise and its risk of permanently damaging hearing. Since government cannot mandate how children play with toys, current testing protocols must be revised to reflect actual play situations.
Through Bill , the government has shown a firm commitment to improving Canada's consumer product safety, requiring manufacturers and suppliers to ensure their products' safety while giving the government the tools needed to ensure accountability. This work is to be commended.
It is important that government extend the same effort to help protect the auditory health of children in Canada by further limiting the decibel level of noisy toys to the WHO level of 75 decibels, as echoed in another important piece of legislation, Bill . It should also improve the method by which this level is measured. Under current standards, the amount of allowable noise of a child's toy would be considered a workplace health hazard, even at moderate exposure.
Given the irreversible nature of hearing damage from noise exposure, it is important that government seize the opportunity of this legislation to include a safer noise standard for children's toys. CASLPA members have seen at first hand the hearing, speech, and language implications that can arise from hearing loss due to unacceptable noise conditions.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to provide an overview of CCSPA's suggestions to improve Bill , the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. I have to say that it's a bit of a tongue twister for me, as our acronym is CCSPA.
My name is Shannon Coombs and I am the president of the CCSPA. I have proudly represented this industry for 10 years. Our accomplishments as a proactive and responsible industry will be clearly visible as I make my presentation.
We are a national trade association that represents 45 member companies across Canada. Collectively, we are a $20-billion industry employing 12,000 people in over 100 facilities. Our companies manufacture, process, package, and distribute consumer, industrial, and institutional specialty products such as soaps, detergents, domestic pest control products, aerosols, hard-surface disinfectants, deodorizers, and automotive chemicals. I have provided the clerk with copies of our one-pager, which has a picture of our products, and I'm sure many of you use them every day.
Why are we here? The health and safety of Canadians is a priority for all CCSPA members and we support this legislation. Our member companies are leaders in the responsible use of chemicals for consumer and institutional products in this country. We are committed to the appropriate and safe use of our products.
Over the past year, we have announced various exciting initiatives, such as the “William, Won't You Wash Your Hands?” initiative, which all of you would have received a copy of a few weeks ago and which we asked you to donate to your local day care or child care facility. That was a partnership with the Public Health Agency of Canada as well as the Canadian Institute of Child Health.
We also announced the voluntary lowering of phosphorus in automatic dishwasher detergent. As well, we have a “Concentrate on the Future” initiative, which is a communication initiative for consumers. I'm sure many of you have seen the 2X or 3X that is now on your laundry or bleach products.
As well, last April, we announced a voluntary ingredient communication initiative that is going to allow companies the ability to disclose all of their ingredients on product labels or members' websites. The great feature of the program is the ability to do this on the website, as it allows companies to explain the benefits and the chemistry behind the products. The program is effective January 1, 2010, and it will cover air care products, automotive and cleaning products, and polishes and floor maintenance products.
Are our member companies' ingredients in products regulated? Yes, they are. Canadians can be confident that the products are safe and that the products they purchase have had various levels of government review and oversight. That oversight depends on the type of product.
In Canada, all substances and products such as laundry powder and liquids, fabric softeners, and dishwashing liquids have had either a new substance notification review or an existing substance review under CEPA and under the chemicals management plan. If any of those consumer products make a claim such as “kills 99.9% of germs”, for example, they're also regulated under the Food and Drugs Act.
As well, the labels on our products are regulated by the consumer chemicals and containers regulations, based under the Hazardous Products Act, which now will fall under Bill . The foundation of that regulation is science. It's a hazard classification, but it provides risk communication to consumers. It has provided precautionary labelling for consumers for the last 39 years. It was just modernized, in 2001, and continues to be an excellent regulatory tool for communicating to Canadians. Elements of CCCR-2001 extend to other products such as food and domestic pest control products.
Our disinfectants are regulated by Health Canada. They have a pre-market assessment and, as with any kind of new substance, review under CEPA as well.
Given the diversity of products, we are subject to various laws and regulations such as CEPA, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Food and Drugs Act. Therefore, we believe that our experience is most beneficial to the committee, as we have been actively involved in the modernization of all these pieces of legislation.
We are seeking two additional clauses for Bill , which include provisions for hoaxes and a provision for a ministerial advisory council. Both amendments would enhance the legislation.
Why? In our experience, a minister's advisory council, such as the one that exists currently under the Pest Control Products Act, and which I'm a member of, is a valuable tool for exchanging information and providing constructive feedback to the minister and the department to help shape and form current and future policies and regulations.
Given the three-pronged approach outlined by the officials--active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response--an advisory council could be only another effective tool to the minister and the department for implementing Bill . We believe it would enhance outcomes and actions of Health Canada.
Why a provision for hoaxes? We believe that people should be accountable for information or misinformation they provide about consumer products and their ingredients. The provision for hoaxes is borrowed from the legislation that was tabled last April in Bill , the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.
Clearly the government believes there is a problem and they need the authority to take action on Food and Drugs Act products, as it was included in this proposed legislation. Therefore, in the spirit of consistency with other Health Canada legislation, Bill would be strengthened by providing the government with the authority to deal with people who deliberately seek to mislead consumers on these products as well. The goal should be that consumers have the information they need to make balanced and well-informed choices. Fear should not be allowed to be a marketing tool.
We respectfully request that the committee consider these two additions to the proposed law. We have provided some other minor amendments, such as a consistent precautionary statement in the preamble that would be consistent with CEPA and the Pest Control Products Act, plus some other housekeeping items.
I would like to touch on the issue of labelling, as it was raised here at committee during testimony today. I don't believe there has been enough information, or enough factual information, provided to the honourable members from the department on current regulatory authorities for labelling in this country; nor do I believe the information provided in previous testimony to be complete.
Is additional precautionary labelling warranted, and does it need to be included in this bill? As I stated in my opening remarks, labels on consumer products that contain substances are regulated by CCCR. The regulations are science-based, and they include risk communication. Canadians have been using this system for 39 years. Children are even taught to identify the symbols as early as junior kindergarten. What would be achieved by adding another labelling provision to this act?
Canadians are protected by CCCR. Including an amendment in this legislation for labelling of carcinogens; offering up a California Proposition 65 system; using a straight list-based system, such as using substances listed on schedule 1 of CEPA or IARC; even using the building blocks of GHS--we do not believe these meet the needs of Canadians.
CCSPA supports the consumer's right to know, the right to meaningful information, and the right to accurate information. Do any of those systems provide balanced information to the consumer? How would the government even enforce such a law?
In our opinion, by having parliamentarians amend Bill to include additional labelling, it would effectively be creating a loophole that would have two negative outcomes--one, the sale of unsafe products; and two, misleading claims on safe products.
Why would there be unsafe products? If a product bears a warning statement or a symbol, then consumers have been duly warned; therefore, where is the accountability? Canadians have public policy and legislative frameworks based on risk. This is not the American system of buyer beware. If a product is unsafe, the Canadian government should take it off the market--period. Why would we put forward an act that allows the government to take action via the general prohibition on unsafe products but allows unsafe products on the market to be sold as long as they're labelled?
Why would there be misleading claims? A system that penalizes ethical companies—my member companies—whose businesses are founded on consumer product confidence, and whose products are safe and do not cause cancer.... They will be forced to be put on their products a misleading claim, because a symbol of “C” on sunscreen or hand sanitizers is not accurate, as the end product is safe, even though they contain IARC-listed substances.
Right now Health Canada does not allow companies to make a claim unless it's true--for example, the level of calcium or vitamin C in products. Therefore, why would government force companies to put a “C” on a label for a product that is not a carcinogen?
If a new labelling amendment does go forward, what will we end up with? We'll end up with chaos in the marketplace and consumer confusion, asking moms to make decisions and do their own risk assessments at the retail level; an ineffective law that can't be enforced; flourishing allegations and lawsuits that waste taxpayers' dollars, exactly as has happened in California; companies forced to overlabel; and barriers to trade. I think we would agree that this is not where we want to be.
I offer these comments to you today as a way of continuing and informing this important debate. If the honourable members are contemplating a substantial change to our risk-based society, then the facts all need to be on the table.
In our opinion, Bill is a modern piece of legislation that allows this government to take an aggressive and responsive approach to protecting Canadians. It has mandatory recall provisions, incident reporting, a general prohibition to take action on products, and fines. The labelling discussion should not detract us from our collective goal, which is to pass this piece of legislation.
I would be most pleased to answer any questions that the committee has.
:
Thank you very much for the invitation to address the group.
I direct McGill University's Office for Science and Society, which is a rather unique enterprise in Canada, and probably in the world. It's the first time any major university--depending on which ranking you look at in the world, we're anywhere from number 12 to 17--has said that our job is not over the moment our students leave our gates; that today there is tremendous hunger out there for scientific information, and if the hunger is not fulfilled in a proper, reliable, scientific fashion, then people will end up listening to whoever is standing on the tallest soapbox yelling the loudest, usually the charlatans.
Our goal, then, is to demystify science for the public, to make sure that we separate sense from nonsense, and to foster critical thinking. If all that works, we thus try to keep them out of the clutches of charlatans.
Through my office and through my radio shows and TV appearances, I think I have my finger on the pulse of the public. What I detect is a tremendous amount of worry out there. People are worried about microwave ovens, they're worried about cell phones, they're worried about asbestos, and they're worried about formaldehyde. It depends on which day; every day there seems to be some new worry that arises.
The word “chemical”, unfortunately, rears its head, and it has become a dirty word. In the popular press, it's almost always preceded by a pejorative adjective--“dangerous”, “toxic”, or “poisonous”. There isn't the public realization that everything in the world is made of chemicals. They're not good or bad. They don't make decisions. We make decisions.
The chemical world is tremendously complex. Since the end of the Second World War, we've introduced some 80,000 synthetic chemicals into the marketplace to go along with the hundreds of thousands of naturally occurring compounds.
The human body makes no distinction between synthetic and natural in the way that we detoxify these substances. Therefore, there should be no need to make any distinction on any kind of label about synthetic or natural toxins.
The word “carcinogen” is a very loaded word, and it's a very frightening word for most people. They don't realize what it really means. Technically, the definition of a carcinogen is that it is a substance that in any animal, in any dose, causes any sort of cancer. It does not mean that is known to be a human carcinogen.
Formaldehyde is listed as a carcinogen. Indeed, there are studies that show that people who are exposed to high levels of formaldehyde in the occupational environment are more prone to certain cancers. This has no bearing on the trace amounts of formaldehyde that may be used as a preservative in a shampoo.
Our allegiance through my office is solely to the scientific method and to peer-reviewed literature. We take no funding from any interest whatsoever. It is totally funded by the university. To me personally, it really makes no difference whether BPA is banned or not, or castigated, or made into an angel. The only thing I want is to abide by the scientific method.
I'll just point out a few curiosities. Much of what we know about toxicology comes from animal studies--mostly rodents, mostly rats. Well, the fact is that the human, with a few exceptions of course, is not a giant rat. It is very difficult to extrapolate. But the public doesn't really appreciate the fact that something that has been called a carcinogen in a rat has a completely different effect in humans. That notion will be lost if something is just labelled as a carcinogen.
Why would we then not label apples as being carcinogenic? They contain formaldehyde, naturally occurring, in fact in higher doses than one would find in most cosmetics.
Take the coinage that we use. Nickel is on a group one list as a carcinogen. When we handle a nickel, the surface is oxidized. It's nickel oxide. That's a carcinogen.
Why do we not label sunshine as a carcinogen? Because we use reason. The dosages are important. The exposure is important. That always has to be taken into account.
I think one very important way to look at all of these issues is to take a look and see what the real experts say about this. It should all be ruled by science, not by emotion.
Take a look at toxicologists, for example. A survey was recently done by an American society of toxicologists. Close to a thousand of them were surveyed and asked about such things as BPA and phthalates. Ten percent of these guys said they think BPA is a real risk, and about the same percentage said that phthalates are a real risk. Twelve percent thought that high-fructose corn syrup is a real risk. And these are the people who really do know what they are talking about.
Unfortunately, information in real scientific terms is very difficult to acquire. Toxicology is a tremendously complex subject. It's very difficult to translate that information to the public, but unfortunately it's pretty easy to scare the public. There's a whole industry out there today that scares the public.
I want to finish up by giving you an example, because I think it is very, very important to take into account the effect that warnings have on people in terms of physical health. A study was done very recently with a group of students. They were told that a cylinder contained air that was mixed with an environmental toxin that can trigger headaches and nausea.
The students were divided into two groups. Half of them were asked to inhale this air. Well, of course, it was bogus; there was nothing in the cylinder except air. But as you can imagine, the ones who inhaled it started to develop the symptoms, whereas the others did not. In a subsequent experiment, when the students were shown a subject who had inhaled this air and developed nausea, they themselves developed it as well, even though they were inhaling just ordinary air.
If that isn't frightening enough, the ultimate case is that of a gentleman who was diagnosed with liver cancer and was told that he had three months left to live. Indeed, he died within that period of time of bizarre symptoms. He became very, very sick. Upon autopsy, they learned that he didn't have cancer at all. It was a misdiagnosis, which of course is very pertinent today, because yesterday we heard about all the problems in Quebec with pathological misdiagnosis.
This is why this is so important: because the mind has a fantastic effect on the body. Before we start labelling things as carcinogens in consumer products that have not been shown to cause cancer in humans--and if they have, of course, they should not be on the market--we have to take into account the effect they may have.
As one final idea, we test urine, and you hear all of these studies about chemicals being present in the urine; you drink from a plastic bottle and you find BPA in the urine. This is meaningless unless the levels can be linked to some knowledge about what those levels actually mean. If you drink a cup of coffee--
:
It's interesting that you bring that up, because I was just in California on a lecture tour and spoke at a number of schools and to public groups and got a real feel for what is going on down there.
Of course the warnings on proposition 65 are everywhere in California. You go fill up on gas, and of course there's a sign saying “known to the State of California” that gasoline vapours are carcinogenic. That's known only to the State of California; nobody else knows this.
The end result is that these things become invisible because the warnings are everywhere. When you cry wolf too often, nobody pays attention when the real wolf comes to the door. This is what is happening with proposition 65. Even in California they're making a joke of it, because you go into a supermarket and the labels are absolutely everywhere, saying that everything is “known to the State of California” to be carcinogenic. I see a real problem with that. When you make a warning, it has to be meaningful. It has to be meaningful, and not just because something in some dose did something in some animal.
The labelling problem is a real fly in the ointment. There's no question about that. We all, of course, want to have the best possible information. I'm certainly not against labelling. I think we need to have important stuff on that label. The difficulty is in deciding what should be on that label so that it really makes for a meaningful decision.
I don't have anything against a toy listing phthalates as an ingredient if it is known to be in there and it's a legal ingredient, which it is. Even in California, only six different phthalates have been banned. All the others are legal. Sure, put it on the label, and then let people look up what that really means. Yes, I agree with that.
The lead is a bit of a different issue, which you addressed, because lead is not put in there on purpose. Lead gets into toys in one of two ways. One is that it gets in illegally, when they're using lead-based paints, which you should not be using. The other thing is that lead is ubiquitous in the environment and it is virtually impossible to exclude it. It depends on what level you're going to investigate it at.
As I tell my colleagues, the analytical chemists, they're the root of all of our problems, because they're too good. Now they're down to parts per trillion. That's one second in 32,000 years. Or if you don't like that analogy, it's one drop of water in 1,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. We can find that. This is not finding a needle in a haystack; this is finding a needle in a world full of haystacks.
Now, the question is, what does that mean? Just because something is there doesn't mean that it's causing harm. The dose is very, very important, and there are doses below which the chemical does not do any harm.
The lead is a real problem because it's not supposed to be in there, so how can you label for something that should not be in there?
:
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.
:
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 .
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 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 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.
:
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 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 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 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.
:
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.
[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 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 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.
We believe that the proposals in Bill 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.
:
We are concerned, however, by the non-inclusion or rather, the disappearance, of section 18 of the previous Bill . This section stipulated:
18. The minister may disclose information to the public on a danger to health or human security that any consumer product poses.
We would like this section to be reinstated. To allay the fears of certain stakeholders that the scope of this section could have an adverse impact on the ability to protect commercial information, we recommend that creating a new clause entitled “Communicating with the public” and inserting it in the texts of section 18 of the former Bill .
Canada's main trading partners, the U.S.A. and the European Union have both opted for proactive disclosure on recalls related to health and safety of consumer products. We recommend that a similar system of reporting recalls and the corrective measures taken by government be implemented in Canada. Such a move would go far to bolster the confidence of Canadian consumers. In order to make such a system more user friendly and easily accessible to Canadians, it should be constructed as a single Internet portal where one could, with minimum effort, find information on recalls of all types of products sold in Canada, whether it be consumer products, food, medicines, cosmetics or cars. See, for example, the U.S. government site, www.recalls.gov, for a model.
Inasmuch as Bill allows the minister, through regulation, to adopt the measures necessary to implement this law, we believe that at least the two above-mentioned measures should be acted upon without delay.
You may recollect that there was a flood of recalls of Fisher-Price toys by Mattel in the summer of 2007. Option consommateurs conducted a flash survey of the retailers and the manufacturer to find out how these recalled products could be returned. We discovered then that there was total confusion all round and that all consumers were not treated alike.
We trust that, with the passage of Bill C-6 on consumer product safety, the minister will be able to quickly focus on setting up a recall system that would reflect the interests of consumers, particularly those most vulnerable. Any recalls policy should clarify the steps to be taken to compensate and properly inform consumers of the product that was subject to recall. It should also be accompanied by a guide for manufacturers and distributors so that they could undertake the necessary corrective measures, including recalls, to ensure the safety of products. This guide should be developed in close collaboration with consumer associations, as in Europe.
Toys represent the largest proportion of recalled products in both Europe and the United States. In fact, very strict rules governing toy safety have been adopted across the world in recent years. These include: legislation on chemicals potentially harmful or carcinogenic, lowering of the permitted thresholds for certain hazardous substances, such as lead or mercury, and strengthening the rules regarding the use of tiny parts in toy manufacture.
In 2004, we conducted a study on noise levels in toys for children between zero and three years of age, and we recommended that a stricter standard than the existing one be adopted. Canada can benefit from the experience of other states when creating regulations which are both tailored to the realities of the market but at the same time are effective in protecting consumers.
We hope that the minister will use the power of regulation granted to her wisely and make Canada a safer place for children and for consumers.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention and we will be happy to take your questions.
:
It is a pleasure to be here this evening. We welcome the opportunity to present our brief.
The Professional Institute represents 57,000 professionals across Canada in the public sector, many of whom work in the area of product safety.
Bill C-6, the proposed act addressing the safety of consumer products, gives Health Canada increased authority to protect the public's health and safety from unreasonable dangers posed by consumer products, whether manufactured in Canada or imported from abroad. The bill provides new authorities and tools to enforce compliance. The institute applauds the government's foresight in proposing this bill, and in broadening Health Canada's regulatory authority over consumer products. However, the institute is concerned that the funding is not sufficient. Present allocations may not allow Health Canada to hire enough product safety inspectors to successfully manage the increased responsibilities and obligations related to ensuring product safety.
There has been an exponential growth in the number of product recalls in Canada over the last few years. This is due to the increased number of imported products as well as the increased vigilance of product safety inspectors. Health Canada will become even more involved in providing safety rules and regulations for products—not only at the point of sale, but also during development, manufacturing, importing, and advertising. This stronger oversight role will be accompanied by increases in the reporting of dangerous incidents, product defects, labelling deficiencies, and recalls from other jurisdictions. There will also be increases in inspections of consumer products, seizures of consumer products, ordering of corrective measures, carrying out of recalls, and verifying of compliance. All reports will have to be reviewed and analyzed, and the physical in situ inspections and seizures will need to be stepped up.
Bill C-6 provides Health Canada with expanded powers to search, seize, and possibly destroy private property or take control of businesses if it has been determined that the act has been violated and unreasonable danger to the public health exists. Bill C-6 states that a review officer “shall complete the review within a reasonable time", and that the person who has requested the review is to be notified "without delay". This requires trained staff. It requires professional, qualified product inspectors. The work of a product inspector is exacting and demanding. Nowadays, citizens are requesting more information about the merchandise they buy for their families, and producers, importers, and manufacturers are urging timely action. It has been reported that some stakeholders are concerned about the amount of time it would take to review inspectors' orders for corrective measures. In light of this, we ask the following question: will there be sufficient inspectors to make sure that the new legislation is applied in a timely manner?
We are also concerned that the existing legislation already includes the provision to impose fines, but that these are rarely imposed. This is no doubt due to the lack of personnel needed to carry out the necessary follow-up in such cases. There are simply not enough inspectors.
There are over 630 scientific regulators, the SG group, across Canada, over 60 of whom are consumer product inspectors. Almost all SGs, 95%, are at the working level, with only 5% at the training level. Having so many experienced regulators is a positive, but the situation does not bode well for the future. As with the public service as a whole, a wave of retirements is about to take place. The time required to effect a proper transfer of knowledge is growing short. The loss of the corporate memory will make it difficult for Bill C-6 to be enforced.
The work of inspectors is becoming more technical. There are more demands placed on them, and inquiries are becoming lengthier. Moreover, the number of complaints is growing. It takes three to four years for a new hire to become independent in his or her work. A new product safety inspector will already have at least an undergraduate degree in science, perhaps combined with a few years of experience outside the federal government. More inspectors need to be hired, and experienced inspectors on the brink of retirement need enticements to stay on. This needs to happen very soon.
A clear Health Canada strategy is needed to deal with imported products at the border. Recurring problems are known to exist with some commodities. These need to be seized before they enter the Canadian market or need to be prevented from being imported. Recalls must be avoided. A coordinated effort on the part of the Canada Border Services Agency, or the CBSA, and Health Canada is required.
For example, some government departments and agencies prohibit certain goods from entering Canada. Other goods are controlled, which means that permits, certificates, labels or federal authorizations are needed before they can be released by the CBSA, which otherwise holds them until the importer meets the requirements. All parties must be trained to meet the requirements of Bill C-6. Increased controls must be in place before consumer products are imported into Canada.
Canada is a world leader in terms of food, health, and product safety. With regard to both food and health safety, federal regulators are involved in international education and policy-making. Canadians would benefit from the federal government hiring enough regulators and product inspectors to similarly help educate officials in other jurisdictions. This would reduce the likelihood of hazardous products being imported into Canada and subsequently being used by unsuspecting Canadians.
Our recommendations are for increased funding for Health Canada to allow it to fulfill its broadened mandate; a recruitment strategy to attract and train new inspectors; a retention policy to encourage current staff to remain in place longer in order to retain the corporate memory needed to train the new recruits—and the Expenditure Restraint Act's impact on public service salaries until 2011 is no help in this regard; and a coordinated strategy with the Canada Border Services Agency to prevent unsafe products from entering Canada.
Thank you.
:
Gas prices in fact are up this evening, ladies and gentlemen, by one cent a litre, unlike what the National Energy Board just said today.
Thank you, Dr. Carrie.
I don't mean to burden you with these questions again, and I'm probably trying to go over you to the officials behind who might have a better idea how to explain this, but I have just looked again at the Hazardous Products Act. I look at the powers that are given under governor in council, the powers to the minister. It's almost as if we've said, after 40 years, that the Hazardous Products Act is of no use, it's of no force, it's of no relevance. Yet it had the ability to be adapted to meet the rising circumstances of counterfeit products.
Just for your information, Dr. Carrie and I, and others, sat on the industry committee and came up with a unanimous report in terms of how to tackle this issue, with better enforcement questions and obviously the use of better practices, because it was a scar on the Canadian economy and the way in which we conducted our affairs.
I can appreciate the government's desire to get this bill passed, but in the absence of looking at modifying the existing Hazardous Products Act, we may have denied ourselves several months of enforcement, of resources that are otherwise going to lobbyists, that are otherwise going to lawyers who are looking at this, over and over again, and obviously bureaucracy, which may very well be confused by the legislation. I don't want to call this window-dressing, but if you have a car that you're driving down the road and the tire goes, you fix the tire; you don't replace the entire vehicle. It seems to me that what we're doing here, to use another analogy, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
From any of your experience in the various areas in which you've worked, were there examples of where the Hazardous Products Act was deficient, was not adaptable to meet the requirements that some of you now laud in this new bill?
[Translation]
Ms. Reed, perhaps we can start with you. I know you have a lot of experience in the field. In fact, I should call you Dr. Reed.