Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 8 - Evidence - October 21, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, met this day at 4:09 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to get under way before any bells ring and force us back across the street. It may or may not happen, but let us be prepared.
Today we start on Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. I am anticipating that this will be the first of perhaps four meetings on the subject, but we have not finalized the list. A lot of people that want to appear have various things to say about Bill C-6, either in support or in opposition, or they would like to see some changes or amendments to it. Over the ensuing meetings, we will hear from those people.
At this meeting, we will hear from our officials from Health Canada. You may recall that the last time we dealt with a bill, Bill C-32, the person that appeared here on behalf of Health Canada was Paul Glover, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch. He is back again today. I will let him introduce the officials that are with him. He will also explain their expertise with respect to the matter before us.
Paul Glover, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada: I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-6, the proposed consumer products safety act.
[Translation]
I am the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch of Health Canada. I am joined today by Charles Ethier, Director General of the Consumer Product Safety Directorate; Robert Ianino, Director of the Consumer Product Safety; and Diane Labelle, General Counsel in the Legal Services Unit of Justice Canada, that serves my branch.
[English]
Bill C-6 is an important piece of legislation whose purpose is to protect the public by addressing or preventing dangers to human health or safety posed by consumer products. Bill C-6, which forms part of the government's comprehensive Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan, will focus on three areas of improvement. While it is part of a larger food and consumer safety action plan, obviously Bill C-6 deals just with the aspects of consumer products. There will be separate initiatives coming forward on food and on other parts.
The Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan will focus on three areas: Active prevention, to prevent problems before they occur; targeted oversight, to ensure that the regulatory system is working; and rapid response, namely, the ability to act swiftly when required. Bill C-6 is based on the principle of shared responsibility, recognizing that industry has a primary responsibility for the safety of any products that it manufactures, imports or distributes to the Canadian public. The public has a role in terms of making informed decisions about the consumer products it uses. Finally, the government has a responsibility to monitor and promote compliance and to enforce the legislation that it administers.
Bill C-6 would replace Part 1 of the Hazardous Products Act, the primary federal statute that has addressed unsafe or dangerous consumer products for the past 40 years. Although this product safety regime has served us well, it is outdated and in need of modernization. Today's market is significantly more complex than the one that existed in 1969 when the Hazardous Product Act was introduced. Globalization means that products sold in Canada now originate from all over the world.
[Translation]
Changing technologies have introduced new materials and substances into the marketplace much more rapidly, and there are now more products available to Canadian consumers. Our major trading partners, like the United States and the European Union, have already modernized their product safety regimes to address these new marketplace realities. Without Bill C-6, we are falling behind.
[English]
I believe I have distributed to you a comparison of where we are in Canada with the Hazardous Products Act compared to the U.S. and the EU and with Bill C-6, how we would be able to put ourselves on the same footing as our major trading partners.
Under the Hazardous Products Act, the Government of Canada's ability to address consumer product safety issues in a timely fashion is limited to a reliance on industry to voluntarily recall products. While the idea of working in partnership with industry is important, the government must have the necessary authority to resolve situations where a voluntary approach does not produce the necessary and often timely results that we require. Without the provisions in Bill C-6, Health Canada does not have the authority to order a recall of a dangerous consumer product, stop the sale of a product or remove a product from store shelves if industry refuses to cooperate.
I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the key provisions of the proposed legislation. Bill C-6 would include a general prohibition that would make it an offence for a supplier to manufacture, import, advertise or sell a product that poses an unreasonable danger to the health and safety of the public. The general prohibition would make enforcement options immediately available when there are no regulations in place in respect to the hazards posed by a particular product. This would include stopping the sale, manufacture, or importation of the product and removing the product from store shelves, if necessary. This is in stark contrast to the Hazardous Products Act, whose product-by- product approach does not allow for enforcement action in respect to a product until a regulation is in place. Essentially, the government had to spend significant time and energy proving the product was unsafe, putting it on a schedule to regulate it, which often led to untimely action. That is why we moved to working voluntarily with industry.
Bill C-6 would also include mandatory reporting, where manufacturers, importers and others along the supply chain would be required by law to report any serious product-related health or safety incident or dangerous product defect within a set time frame. Mandatory reporting would significantly strengthen Health Canada's ability to quickly identify consumer product safety problems and respond accordingly with appropriate corrective measures. More importantly, it would contribute to our ability to make product safety information available to Canadians.
The minister would also have the authority to require suppliers to test their products, compile information and provide the results of those tests or studies, if necessary, to verify compliance or prevent non-compliance with the act. These requirements, as is the case with other provisions in the proposed bill, would not introduce unique or onerous requirements for industry. Rather, they are consistent with good business practises in the exercise of normal due diligence. Further, they are consistent with those found in similar legislation in the United States and the European Union.
Bill C-6 — and, we know you have heard a fair bit about this — would also strengthen inspector powers. It is important to note that the powers follow precedents set in other federal health and safety legislation such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; the Pest Control Products Act; the Canada Labour Code; the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; and the Health of Animals Act. In short, we are looking at what practises have worked in other legislation to protect animals and trying to use those to protect the health of Canadians.
Inspectors would have the authority to order suppliers to carry out recalls and other corrective measures, when required. Bill C-6 would also permit inspectors to take action to follow through on the provisions of corrective measures when the supplier fails to do so. These are powers that the U.S. and the EU already have and we do not have today in Canada.
It is important to spend a moment here to address some of the public statements that have been made about the powers Health Canada inspectors would be provided under Bill C-6. Claims have been made that the powers in Bill C- 6 are unprecedented; that they are inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and that Bill C-6 would throw out the law of trespass and would move away from the rule of law. I want to state for the record that this is simply not the case.
Claims have been made that Bill C-6 would grant Health Canada inspectors the power to enter Canadian homes without a warrant. This is simply not true. Health Canada inspectors, in carrying out their duties related to this proposed legislation could only enter a person's home after having obtained a warrant from the court. The court would only provide that warrant if we provided evidence for reason to be concerned or with the homeowner's consent.
Claims have been made that Bill C-6 would allow Health Canada inspectors take control of and shut down a business. This is not true. Health Canada would have the power to order a business or an individual to stop manufacturing, selling or advertising a product that poses a danger to Canadians. If a business is compliant with the act, Health Canada inspectors would have no impact on its operations. In cases where a business feels that our inspectors' orders are unfair, the business can seek a review of those orders. Inspectors' orders are also subject to oversight by the Federal Court of Canada.
Bill C-6 has been carefully drafted, mindful of the rights of Canadians and the importance of having appropriate instruments to address unsafe consumer products. Constitutional law experts from the Department of Justice examined the provisions of Bill C-6 throughout its drafting for consistency with the fundamental protections that Canadians expect and deserve.
Senators will know that the Minister of Justice is required to certify that all provisions of the proposed government legislation tabled in Parliament are, among other things, Charter-compliant.
Another feature of Bill C-6 is the inclusion of new document retention requirements, requiring suppliers to retain information about the source and distribution of their products. This would facilitate better information gathering and sharing in the case of a health and safety incident. These provisions would assist the government in responding quickly and efficiently in applying corrective measures where most appropriate along the supply chain and will be equally beneficial to industry so that we can target the interventions to the appropriate levels.
Bill C-6 would also raise fines and penalties to levels that are in line with modern federal legislation and those of our trading partners.
As well, Bill C-6 would introduce an administrative monetary penalties scheme, AMPS, as a more flexible and responsive alternative to criminal prosecutions. Administrative monetary penalties schemes are increasingly being used within Canadian environmental and consumer protection regulatory schemes to gain compliance and cooperation and to encourage timely rectification of regulatory issues. Examples of other federal legislations using these provisions include the Pest Control Products Act, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and the Health of Animals Act.
It is important to note that there is recourse available under the administrative monetary penalties scheme. AMPS are reviewable by the minister, and an individual can seek the court's review of the minister's decision.
In providing this overview of the key elements of Bill C-6, I hope that I have given you a sense of the main objectives of the proposed legislation. Bill C-6 will prevent problems before they occur, provide the appropriate oversight to ensure the regulatory scheme is working and will enable us to respond rapidly when we see problems.
I hope that I have also been able to provide some clarity around the number of false assertions about the scope and powers Bill C-6 would give Health Canada.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-6 would modernize our ability to protect the health and safety of Canadians from unsafe consumer products.
My colleagues and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chair: I want to point out that two non-members of the committee have joined us today. I usually introduce them first, but I will do so now. Senator Day from New Brunswick is the official critic of Bill C-6. He joins us, as does Senator Mercer from Nova Scotia.
(The committee suspended.)
—————
(The committee reconvened.)
The Chair: I received a letter today from the Bibles for Missions. I did not understand what the relationship was to this issue. Upon reading it, they run some 35 thrift shops across the country, and that reminds me that there are a number of others such as Goodwill and Salvation Army that run these kinds of operations. Of course, they have thrift boxes into which people put donations of clothing et cetera. I believe they are concerned with clause 13, which asks for information on where the items originated. It also requires vendors to keep records of all received items. How will thrift stores be impacted by this proposed legislation?
Mr. Glover: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. We recognize this and, in fact, during the consultations around this bill, that issue was brought up. We have been working since August with a number of charities, Salvation Army, the Canadian Council of Christian Charities and others, to make sure that when this bill comes into force we will be able to exempt through regulation where appropriate the record-keeping requirement for exactly the reasons you cite.
The intention of the record-keeping requirements is not to deal with those anonymous one-off donations. It is meant to deal with the company that is getting things mass-produced in China and claiming that they do not know what is going on in the Chinese plant. We would like them to know what is going into the product, so if there are issues we can source those things back. It is not meant to deal with the one-off situations. There will be exemption regulations for such businesses.
Having said that, having worked with the charities, it would not be a full exemption, in our opinion. There are ends of runs. Say a company decides that it wants to donate to one of the charities; we feel that donations should continue to be subject to record-keeping. That is for us to make sure that if a donor decided to give large numbers of mattresses, cribs, pens or whatever and there was a problem with those items, they could not suddenly work their way onto the market unnoticed. That does not happen very often. The charities understand that and feel that is a reasonable record- keeping. At the same time, it would protect them from companies attempting, intentionally or unintentionally, to sometimes dump products that they may or may not be aware are no longer appropriate or safe to avoid disposal fees and other things. Through record-keeping, the charities would be protected as well. It is only large corporate donations that we would see as we move forward. We have been working with the charities.
The Chair: The regulations will give them an exemption. The regulations will be submitted to both houses of Parliament so we will eventually see those regulations. Before any of this is enforced, those regulations will be in effect. Is that right?
Mr. Glover: That would be our intention to coordinate. I cannot speak specifically to timings. Those are decisions about when this house refers it back.
The Chair: You do not want to leave these people up in the air.
Mr. Glover: That is not our intention to do so. The view would be to coordinate. To answer definitively something that is beyond my control and is actually in control of Parliament is not a commitment I could make.
The Chair: Let me refer a statement you made concerning warrants. If someone is to go into your residential premises, he or she will require a warrant, but for all other premises, a warrant is not necessary. There are very broad powers of search and seizure in this bill that do not require a warrant. We are talking about inspectors who we do not know much about, in terms of training. They seem to have a role like that of a police constable. They have powers that seem similar to police powers, but we do not know who they are or how they have been trained. The appeal process seems to involve a separate person that would hear an appeal but it is not clear whether that person is independent of the inspector's organization. Maybe it is just the inspector's boss, for all we know. Perhaps you could clear these things up.
Why is there not a warrant in terms of commercial properties or other properties that are involved over and above residences? What is the training for these inspectors? What is the appeal process, and is it independent or not?
Mr. Glover: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the questions. First, I would like to attempt to situate this legislation and make sure that everyone understands. We are talking about post-market rather than pre-market. There are literally tens of thousands of consumer products coming into the country, so our objective through this legislation is active prevention through standards, targeted oversight. We cannot be everywhere all at once, I guess is what I am trying to say, given the number of consumer products, the number of facilities, importers and exporters. We will be targeting our efforts.
Inspection is intended to ensure compliance with the act. We would be going in as with any other regulated industry where there is not a requirement for a warrant, to make sure that industry is aware of its obligations and is compliant with the act. That is the basic premise. It is to ensure compliance with the act through inspection. To go to the courts to seek a warrant to ensure compliance is what we have to do; that is a function of inspection. I am not sure how the courts would really react.
The Chair: You are doing it for residential properties.
Mr. Glover: Let us clarify that, too, because it has come up quite a bit. We are interested in a person's place of business so we will not be going into homes unless someone is operating a home business, or we believe that in that home that person is storing a certain product. We are not walking into people's homes; we are walking into people's places of business. If that business happens to be in their home, then we would ask to be invited in to conduct an inspection. If they agree, that is great; if they do not, we would have to then approach the courts and convince them that we had reason.
Diane Labelle, General Counsel, Legal Services Unit, Health Canada: Further to Mr. Glover's point, in terms of what the courts would say, Bill C-6 makes it clear that for an inspector to lawfully enter a place, he or she must first have reasonable grounds to believe that something is happening. That is not a mere suspicion; it has to be founded in reasonable belief. Then a court must be able to objectively measure that belief.
We also recognize the fact that section 8 of the Charter provides that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure; this section does protect against undue government interference with an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Supreme Court of Canada has found in several important cases that when it comes to businesses, business premises and commercial activity, there is a lower expectation of privacy. That is because the objective of regulatory legislation is to protect the public or broad segments of the public from the potentially adverse effects of harmful conduct. When we are saying that the inspectors are going in to ensure compliance, the business owner, the individual, will not be charged or be accused of anything. This is not a criminal proceeding; it is purely an administrative proceeding to ensure compliance. If it reaches the stage where there appears to be more serious activity, and perhaps criminal activity, then an inspector must obtain a warrant to continue the search.
Robert Ianiro, Director, Consumer Product Safety, Health Canada: With respect to your question on the type of training or who these designated inspectors would be, perhaps I can begin by outlining that section 18 gives the minister the authority to designate inspectors without explicit qualifications in that section, and that is not uncommon. In fact, there are several federal statutes that already exist that do not include explicit qualification of inspectors. Perhaps I can cite a few. The Fisheries Act does not have explicit qualifications, nor does the Canada Water Act, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food, the Food and Drugs Act or the Meat Inspection Act. It is quite common to not have specific qualifications outlined in a statute.
What I can say, however, is that all Health Canada inspectors in fact do have university degrees in either science or engineering. That is a requirement, based on the group and level and classification of the individuals and the positions that are classified within the department.
All of the inspectors designated under the current Hazardous Products Act or the proposed Canada consumer product safety bill go through rigorous training that includes, and I am only touching the surface, a knowledge and understanding of the act and all its powers, as well as all the regulations that are enacted under that act. There are also a variety of policies, guidance documents and standard operating procedures that are developed that outline all of the process flows and a step-wise approach to all of our powers. Finally, we also have a Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, like many branches in the department, that has a publicly available compliance and enforcement policy that outlines the scope of the powers, the guiding principles of how those powers would be used.
With respect to your question on the appeal process, I assume you are referring to the inspector's orders that could be issued in situations of non-compliance or where there is a concern of health and safety for consumers.
Those corrective action compliance orders can be reviewed by a designated official, and these are officials designated by the minister. These officials would have to be outside of the chain of command. They could not be tied or have any proximity to the process that led to the issue of the compliance order. We would expect the person to have a background in science, engineering or administration of regulations and statutes and, ideally, even a legal background, if possible.
The Chair: If they are outside the chain of command, then they are really an independent operation, correct.
Mr. Ianiro: Exactly.
The Chair: We are getting crowded here because we have some guests today. Senator Banks from Alberta has also joined us. Everyone else is a member except for the senators I introduced earlier.
Senator Keon: We have had so many inquiries about this fear — almost paranoia — about having homes and places of business searched inappropriately.
You responded with precedents in the Fisheries Act, and that one did not have to have any evidence of any criminal wrongdoing to search in those instances. If you had a reasonable doubt or reasonable evidence, one could get a warrant and proceed with a search.
Why has this tremendous fear surfaced? Is there anything we, as a committee, can do to alleviate some of that fear?
Mr. Glover: One of the documents I have tabled includes a number common questions you have been facing, and answers that the department feels are appropriate. We have shared that with you, if that will help in responding to stakeholders.
I can also say that from the significant consultations we have had with industry, industry groups, consumer groups and others, protecting the health and safety of Canadians is something that they care about, as well. There are significant numbers of industries that welcome these initiatives; they think they are important to level the playing field. Industries that are concerned about the health and safety of consumers and are introducing responsible products to the market and have done the appropriate due diligence on the testing, would like to know that other players are bearing those same costs, doing the record-keeping to make sure that they are also producing safe products for Canadians. There are a large number of industries that are quite supportive of this proposed legislation.
We are also aware of the natural health products group, which is quite vocal about a large number of concerns. The minister has said there was an amendment to this act that explicitly ensures this act does not apply to natural health products and will not. It would require an amendment to the act. We believe that, if there are concerns from that group, they will not be covered by this legislation.
Senator Keon: I think that is very wise. I do not want to detain you too long because there are so many people around the table. That will have to be dealt with on another day, with another piece of legislation, I am sure. It has to come.
I accept your response, but I do not know why there is this persistent fear of heavy-handed inspectors invading people's privacy, places of business, et cetera.
Mr. Glover: To elaborate on the senator's question, this is one piece of legislation. As proposed, and if you read it in isolation, I can understand those concerns. However, it exists within a larger framework of other legislation that continues to apply.
If we exercise undue force, we have liabilities, et cetera. You cannot and should not read this piece of legislation in the absence of all legislation that exists to protect Canadians. I will turn to my colleague from Justice.
Ms. Labelle: I would like to point out that there is no immunity provision in the bill. In other words, an inspector who acts in a negligent fashion could be found liable by a court. That is one aspect.
Another aspect is they are not authorized to use force on their own. They must obtain a warrant and be accompanied by a peace officer. I would suspect that, if it reaches that point, it is really because they are thinking there is egregious behaviour and not just non-compliance.
In addition, an inspector is required by basic principles of law to act reasonably at all times, and his or her actions are reviewable by the Federal Court of Canada.
Mr. Glover: There is this impression that we have armies and armies of inspectors waiting to kick down people's doors. We manage this piece of legislation in a post-market environment. Companies do not come to us and first say, ``Can we sell?'' That would clog the markets with, literally, the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of products and innovations that occur. We work in a post-market environment. We are not interested in the one or two transactions in someone's home. We are interested in protecting the health and safety of Canadians.
That means our inspections will be targeted to where we think there is the greatest leverage, people who are importing, selling and manufacturing large numbers of products. We are looking to ensure those players are compliant with the legislation, know their responsibilities, so we and Canadians can be certain about the products they are buying.
The only time we will be going into places like that is if we have had complaints from the public about a particular product, and where they purchased it from, that led to health or safety risks. That would lead us to knock on a particular small business, wherever they might be, in terms of the concerns. However, there would have been incidences reported to us, which requires us to follow up and investigate. There are simply so many products that we will target our resources based on where there is risk.
The Chair: Before I move along to the next member of the committee, I want to welcome Senator McCoy from Alberta. This is obviously a hot issue.
Senator Eaton: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen. One of the things I found interesting in the bill, and something you have said in your presentation, is that industry has a primary responsibility for the safety of any product it manufactures, imports or distributes.
However, I have certainly heard criticism from major retailers about this so-called ``responsibility,'' if you define ``responsibility'' as ``reporting requirements.'' Could you tell me what, if anything, you have said to them; how you intend to deal with that? I notice it is fluid in the bill.
Mr. Glover: Thank you very much for the question. We would acknowledge that it is fluid in the legislation, and I would admit to the committee that it is deliberate. This is something that will evolve over time, and we will deal with it through policy guidance, advice, direction to industry and, if necessary, regulation that we can amend based on what is working.
Right now, industry is not required to report on any incidents; there is no mandatory reporting on any incidents. We often find out from other jurisdictions about problems they have had without finding out about them locally.
This bill will change that situation. If there are problems with children's toys, with cribs, they will be required to tell us so that we can investigate, take corrective action and those sorts of things.
What is an ``incident'' and who has to report is something we have been working on with industry. It is not our interest, given the large numbers of consumer products, to be inundated with nuisance complaints or requests. We are working with industry to figure out what would be an incident that would be worthy of being reported to us.
We are looking for things such as the product breaking. Is there a flaw in the design or in the manufacture of the product? If we see enough trends on that item, it could create a risk. Perhaps, people are having problems with an item; maybe the item is poorly assembled. That could create a risk. There may also be accidents as a result of the use of the product or a failure of the product. We are working with industry to clarify those reporting requirements.
Again, that is to provide us the intelligence to say we may need to intervene or develop a standard.
Senator Eaton: That reassures me because there would be an overburden of over-reporting. Therefore, after the bill is passed will you set about drawing up a series of regulations?
Mr. Glover: At this point, we are working through policy guidance and document with industry. We will continue to do that for the first year to make sure we get it right with industry. We have had significant consultations with them. We are also aware that for the large enterprises they tend to do this already.
Senator Eaton: Will they not have a lot of extra paperwork?
Mr. Glover: No, we acknowledge that some of the small- and medium-sized enterprises are not used to doing this. We are contacting those businesses to say, here is the burden we are imposing on you, we are trying to make sure it is minimized. We do not want unnecessary information that will only clog our systems. We have to look at the different size of the businesses we are working with and their processes.
Mr. Ianiro: All of our consultations have been broad with industry. We have heard consistently from the SMEs to the larger enterprises that they want us to move to policy and guidance at the beginning rather than going straight to regulations. It could take us anywhere from 12 months to 18 months to get a regulation through. By the time they are printed in the Canada Gazette, we will have learned many things and are back to square one.
This is why we are working with industry in developing this policy and guidance. It is an ongoing process that will continue. It is only at a point where the policy and guidance either is not working or we are seeing issues with people not reporting that we could move to regulations. Everyone has agreed that is clearly the best way to proceed.
Senator Segal: My first question relates to some of the so-called ``constitutional issues'' that people have raised with respect to the bill. There is a strong concern as you know about searching private property — which you have discussed; the seizing of private property without court supervision; destroying private property without court supervision; taking control of businesses without court supervision in some circumstances; hanging on to seized private property without a court order; and imposing penalties without a court order.
I am grateful for your indication that you would be moving by regulation to protect the second-hand thrift shops, church shops and others across the country. Are there any of the issues I have raised that you think you might be able to address in the regulatory process to give a greater sense of confidence and reduce some of the anxieties?
My second question relates to trade. Many of the same people assured us when we were talking about tobacco that the measures proposed in a bill with much the same structure that this proposed legislation would not be a trade problem.
We now have U.S. congressmen and senators taking out full-page advertisements in newspapers in Washington to talk become Canada's unfair trade practices. There is an anxiety that we would, with respect to the total lead concentration limits and others, be imposing limits that are not part of the international norm for other countries that care as much about safety for kids as we do, and will be found to be in violation of trade provisions because of excessive regulation making the importation of goods from other countries more difficult.
The public service has worked very hard to find the right mix of instruments. You are limited by the federal jurisdiction in what you can use. However, in and of itself, that is not an excuse for creating a problem if we can avoid it either in design or in the regulatory process.
I am interested in any advice you could give on those two questions.
Mr. Glover: I will ask my colleague from the Department of Justice and Mr. Ianiro to expand on my answer. I will leave the legal aspects of trade to my colleague from the Department of Justice.
We understand where it makes sense to harmonize, so if a toy is manufactured, there are not different requirements for Canada, the U.S. and the EU if that does not make sense. However, we are concerned about not moving to the lowest common denominator. We have an interest in protecting the health and safety of Canadians. There will be times when we feel we have the scientific evidence to support moving to a level different from our colleagues in the EU or the U.S. We are prepared to do that.
We are interested in collaborating and cooperating to ensure that we are not introducing inappropriate and unnecessary trade barriers to harmonize and standardize testing requirements for the industries. This will facilitate the simplification of both reporting and testing requirements. It will be different when we feel it is necessary to be different to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We feel that is a justifiable difference. Each jurisdiction reserves the right to do that as we have seen in a number of instances.
With respect to the seizing of products, forfeiture and taking control of a business, we do not have the power to take control of a business. We have the ability to direct the company to take corrective measures. If we see a product that is not appropriately labelled such as with English- or French-only labels, we can indicate that they need to correct that. They can put on a sticker that deals with the difference. If something is inappropriate and we can suggest a corrective action such as with an unsafe crib, we wish to avoid those recalls.
It is only when they would not comply with our corrective action that we would issue the administrative monetary penalty. If we feel they were not able to correct the issue, or we said they cannot fix this and we them want to stop sale and they continue to sell the product, then we would seize.
Only when they are not in compliance with the instructions we have provided to them, would we seize a product. If they would not provide tests or other information to allow us to determine if a product is compliant, we would take a sample so we could test it. We are required to return those once compliance is ascertained. The only time we would retain a product is through a prosecution where it was forfeited or it was required to be destroyed.
We are not interested in taking control of the business or seizing mass numbers of products. We would only be doing that in the extreme cases where our instructions are not followed.
The Chair: Will you be passive or proactive in pursuing harmonization?
Mr. Glover: We will proactive, quite aggressive, in fact.
Ms. Labelle: I would like to come back to the notion of seizing a product and detaining it indefinitely.
Inspections through Health Canada cannot detain products indefinitely unless it has been abandoned, forfeited voluntarily or the owner could not be found. There are very precise circumstances in which detention would be of an indefinite nature. Clause 24 of the bill requires that a seized item be returned if the inspector is satisfied that the act or regulations have been complied with.
We also are aware of the fact that the item may also be forfeited upon conviction or upon finding that a violation has been committed. Again, it is a very specific situation allowing for indefinite detention.
If the seizure occurs during a criminal investigation, the seizure would have to be done so under a Criminal Code warrant. The item would have to be returned unless it is required for that investigation or the proceedings that ensue. If the product is not returned, the inspector must report to the court or bring it to the court for determination to be made respecting its disposition. The individual may also apply to the court to have the seized item returned under certain circumstances.
Can the property be destroyed without any review? The destruction of property can only happen if the property has been forfeited as I have explained. Forfeiture can only occur where a person has been found to have committed a contravention, is not in compliance with the act or has committed a criminal offence under the act. They may not claim their property or consent to its forfeiture in a review of the facts available, either by the minister when we are talking about a contravention or by the court when we are talking about a criminal offence. Even if the minister performs the review, the federal court is able to review the minister's review. In the end, there is oversight over the seizure, detention and destruction of property.
The Chair: Do you have anything else to add on the trade aspects?
Ms. Labelle: With respect to trade aspects, the Department of Justice does assess each and every piece of legislation for consistency with Canada's trade obligations.
In terms of specific standards, the Department of Justice would then assess each and every new regulation or each and every new standard being proposed. It is on a case-by-case basis, and we would evaluate each as they are developed by the Department of Health.
Senator Cordy: All of us sitting around the table want products to be safe for Canadians. That is a given. I think we all agree with the premise behind the bill of product safety, but I have to say, I have received more correspondence on this bill than probably any other bill, including the civil marriage bill, which says a lot. I think that we have to be responsible in ensuring there are no negative impacts of this bill on Canadians.
One thing that concerns me is the disclosure of information by the minister in clauses 15 and 16. The minister may disclose confidential business information to a person or government. When I look at the definition of a ``government,'' it includes foreign states and international organization of states. That makes me a little bit nervous. Then when I read it is without the consent of the person, you might not get the consent, but the person does not even have to be notified that this information is being sent to whomever the minister decides it should be sent to.
I have received a lot of information, understandably so, from industry people who are concerned that trade secrets could in fact be passed on by the minister to other governments or even within Canada, but specifically to other governments.
The same type of thing was in Bill C-11, that dealt with human pathogens. I thought okay, I do not really like it, but it is human pathogens, so I will let it go. This, however, is dealing with product safety, and I understand that we always have to recognize that products sold or given to Canadians have to be safe. Has this passed the smell test by the Privacy Commissioner? Why is there the need for the disclosure to foreign governments or foreign government organizations?
Mr. Glover: We fully anticipate that the utilization of this portion of the act as passed would be under the most exceptional circumstances, which is to protect the health and safety of Canadians. It would only be that the failure to do so would result in an undue and inappropriate risk to the health and safety of Canadians. This is something that would be used in an exceptionally rare set of circumstances.
Given the global nature of the businesses we are dealing with and the number of countries involved in the supply chain, there will be times where we will have to deal with other foreign governments, institutions that are not headquartered in Canada. That is why some of those provisions are contained in the bill.
We have also consulted with the Privacy Commissioner.
Mr. Ianiro: We are of the position that our confidential business information clauses 16 and 17 strike the appropriate balance among public interest, addressing the danger to human health and safety as well as protecting any information that industry is providing to us.
The confidential business information we are talking about here would basically be things such as account information or lists of where products were sold, who their suppliers were and who they distributed these products to. This is the not the type of information that we would need to disclose to any of the examples you cited, be it foreign jurisdictions or other international organizations. The kind of information we would be sharing would be to cooperate, communicate and ascertain other details that we may not have at our disposal in order to deal with the health and safety situation.
For example, we may come across an incident with a crib. If we had knowledge that crib was also sold in the United States, we would then communicate with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, our counterpart in the U.S., to ask whether they had any incidents relating to this product and when and what were the types of incidents. We are doing that right now under the Hazardous Products Act. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada issue joint recalls. It is through the disclosure of this type of information that we are able to do that.
We have been criticized in the media for taking slow action and not responding to things as quickly as some other jurisdictions, particularly the United States. That is partly because they have mandatory incident reporting and we do not. That would change under Bill C-6. It is also because you need to have this sharing of information, and these provisions allow us to do that.
It is important to note that under clause 17, in instances of serious or imminent danger — equate that to death — the minister can disclose this information without having a confidentiality agreement. It is important to note that in clause 16, a confidentiality agreement must be in place in order for us to share the information. There are other common law and other types of law on what happens with that information if it happens to be disclosed inappropriately.
Why international organizations and provinces need to be there is, for example, the majority of electrical products are regulated through provincial requirements. For example, in Ontario, it is the Electrical Safety Authority. By having the ability to share information, we can work with the provinces to ensure a consistent and uniform approach across Canada.
With respect to international organizations, there are standards bodies that are not necessarily tied to government organizations that do a lot of certification and accreditation of products. We also would have to communicate with these entities in order to determine whether or not the products actually went through a certification or accreditation process.
These types of provisions exist. In fact, we have confidentiality agreements in place now and are working collaboratively, particularly with the United States, as well as, to a certain extent, with the European Union.
Senator Cordy: You said you consulted with the Privacy Commissioner. What did she say?
Mr. Glover: There were a number of questions that they provided to us on a range of issues that we have been in the process of following up on, so I am not in a position to say exactly. We could provide that information to the clerk.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you very much for your presentation. I want to talk about clause 12. You are placing the onus on the manufacturers and importers to do the tests and the studies rather than government agencies, such as the Food Inspection Agency and so on. I am wondering why you are doing that. Why are we shifting?
Second, how will the federal government follow up to ensure that these tests and studies are done correctly? Do the manufacturers and importers have to complete the tests within a certain time frame? What about the costs? There may be huge costs, which would be fine for the large- and medium-sized businesses, but I am thinking about small businesses. Have you had any small business people who have brought this up with you, or have you had consultations on this bill?
Mr. Glover: There have been significant consultations. Fifty plus organizations have been working with us and providing us with information. There have been and continue to be significant consultations with industry and civil society.
With respect to your question about why the shift, it comes back — and, I apologize for being somewhat repetitive — to the sheer volume of consumer products in the market place. The onus is on those people who design them, manufacture and test them to ensure that they have considered safety. They must be able to demonstrate that they have done so. They can no longer wash their hands and say, ``We are not sure what the plant in China does or what goes into that paint.'' They need to be able to specify the ingredients that go into that paint, and ensure through their supply chain and design what goes into the finished product sold in Canada. They have to ensure it is a safe product.
As I said earlier, our objective is to prevent problems before they occur. We are intending to work, as my colleagues have indicated, with standards associations to lay out clearly the appropriate standards for a wide range of consumer products. It must be clear that the industries are aware of the requirements and can manufacture to those standards. They must test their products, not just for our benefit, but they must be able to demonstrate to the standards associations that they are compliant with the standards in those areas. That will allow us to be more flexible and more efficient regarding where we target our resources when there are problems. Industries bear the responsibility for bringing safe products to market for Canadians and should not rely on government to do their quality assurance.
Mr. Ianiro: With respect to why we are shifting, this is another authority that the minister would have to request test results. The tests may already exist and be in the hands of manufacturers and importers. This does not mean that Health Canada will not continue testing products at our product safety laboratory. We need to be clear on that.
Presently, we have upwards of 30 regulations under the Hazardous Products Act. Those 30 regulations will continue to exist under the Canada Consumer Products Safety Act. Over a six- or seven-year cycle, we will look at all aspects of those regulations and do target testing at our own accredited lab here in Ottawa. That will continue. Clause 7 allows us to request those test results from manufacturers and importers and to provide those to us. In most cases, they have those readily available. There would be spot checks and testing done to validate the accuracy.
With respect to your question concerning the validity of the tests, the laboratory has standardized test methods available to industry. Basically, these articulate what test methodology, what apparatus, and what type of extraction or equipment we use to carry out our compliance and enforcement testing.
With respect to a time line, in most cases these test reports are already done. In most cases, it is the only way to know the product is compliant with Canadian requirements. With respect to costs, the majority of the industry is already doing it. It is important to note that these powers are only subjected to manufacturers and importers, not to retailers or advertisers. Unless you are a direct importer of record, we do not have the ability to request those test results. From a policy perspective, we would agree that we would not want to be targeting small retailers with what could potentially be costly tests. Then, again, those are the costs of doing business. In some cases, the only way to verify that the products you are importing meet our requirements is to carry out these tests.
Senator Callbeck: You say that these tests and studies will be standardized, but how will the federal government ensure that they will be carried out correctly?
Mr. Glover: Our point in this is to ensure that they are aware of the standards. As my colleague has indicated, we will do tests to ensure that industry is aware of its responsibility and, through the sampling we do, verify that the process is working. That is the point of the testing we do in our labs.
The Chair: We will now move along to Senator Martin, who is from British Columbia. She is the official sponsor of Bill C-6 in the Senate.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much for appearing and for the work that you have done. I have two questions. The first question concerns the Charter and constitutional issues. Has the Minister of Justice had a chance to thoroughly review this legislation? Does he feel that these concerns are being addressed?
Ms. Labelle: I can confirm that the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Minister of Justice, has assessed the bill for consistency with the Charter. The inspection powers have been thoroughly scrutinized for compliance with section 8 of the Charter. We are satisfied that they meet the appropriate court-established tests.
Senator Martin: My second question concerns the other jurisdictions and our interconnected global economy. You stated that other countries such as the U.S. and the EU have already modernized their regimes. In what ways are we behind? How will this help us catch up? You cited an example of the mandatory reporting that is part of the bill. Can you elaborate on some of the other shortfalls that we have here in Canada?
Mr. Glover: I have tabled a one-page document that lays out these shortfalls, so I can quickly refer to that as we move through it.
We have the general safety requirement which puts the onus on industry. The current HPA does not have that. The new Bill C-6 would. While the U.S. does not have a general safety requirement, it has the same ability to address unregulated standards. The EU has that same process, the general safety requirement. We are behind in that regard right now. This would bring us up to speed.
Mandatory reporting does not exist within the current HPA. It is proposed under Bill C-6. The U.S. and the EU already have those abilities. The same applies with traceability as it moves through. We do not have traceability requirements, whereas the U.S. and the EU do through document retention. Concerning mandatory corrective action, including recall, we do not currently have that; our major trading partners do. Fines and penalties, we currently have, but we must be on a regulated product, which means going through Canada Gazette Part I and Part II. At that time, we have not protected the health of Canadians so we move through voluntary measures. We do not issue fines because that does not work given the pace. We are behind our major trading partners now.
The other point which relates to the last question is third party accreditation and verification. There is also a process in other jurisdictions to allow accredited independent third party certification and testing bodies to do testing on behalf of companies. The government accepts those as it moves forward.
Senator Dyck: This bill has many similarities to a bill we dealt with not so long ago on Bill C-11, with human pathogens and toxins. Many of the concerns are similar with respect to the powers of inspectors, and privacy, and so on.
One of the big differences between them is the level of risk. With Bill C-11, it was clear that we were dealing with agents that are infectious and highly toxic. I think then we could relate to the necessity for inspectors to have powers to enter to protect the health of Canadians.
If we look at Schedule 2 of Bill C-6, at the prohibited agents, it does not seem to be the same level of risk. How, then, under clause 30, would you decide that there were reasonable grounds to go in and see something and do a recall order? What would constitute reasonable grounds?
Mr. Glover: I would like to suggest to the members of the committee that the notion that these are benign risks would not be prudent. We have the unfortunate reality of dealing with Canadians on a daily basis that are subject to harm as a result of consumer products. There are deaths on an annual basis; there are hospitalizations due to injury and there are accidents. When these things are safe, they are wonderful. They make our lives great and we love them, but they do create risk. With unsafe products, we have the unfortunate reality of deaths and accidents.
In terms of ranking OECD compared to other countries, we are not doing as well as some of our major partners in this regard. Hospitalizations due to accident and injury often relate to inappropriate and unsafe consumer products, and unclear instructions that confuse consumers as we move forward. These are not benign.
Charles Ethier, Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Health Canada: It is probably a misconception that consumer products constitute a lesser degree of risk than other products. As Mr. Glover, mentioned, there are unfortunate circumstances related to consumer products that sometimes can lead to death.
The current legislation has some gaps when we compare it to that of our international trading partners. Bill C-6 is intended to address those gaps to allow us to take more timely and effective action when we run into circumstances where toys, for example, constitute a risk of death.
We have had situations like this — for example, yo-yo balls. We have had a recent recall of those types of products in Canada, where they constituted a very real strangulation hazard, as well as other situations where deaths have occurred.
We also have had incidents in the last year or so about children's art kits. Some of the substances used in those art supplies contained the date rape drug. These instances are rare, thankfully; but there are instances where the risks are very real.
We also cannot assume, because of the nature and the number of consumer products — particularly new consumer products — that appear on the market every year, that we can anticipate all the risks associated with them. This legislation is necessary to allow us to take effective action when we do identify those risks. We believe that Bill C-6 will do just that.
Mr. Glover: The question was how do we prioritize risk? Because of the training inspectors go through — policy manuals, guidance and other documents — we would not say there is a labelling problem and demand a recall. There are simple fixes that we understand and industry understands; a simple label added to the product corrects it, which is very straightforward.
We have sophisticated methodologies that allow us to triage and prioritize the risk. If it is a problem with instructions, it is a simple corrective intervention. If there is a broken part, do not recall the product; issue a new part and replace it.
Many issues can be dealt with through training, experience, protocols and through the track record of the industry in terms of its ability to respond to these concerns and the severity of the problems. Obviously, our greatest concern is for young children who are completely vulnerable to safe design. From there, we see loss of limbs, fingers and that sort of thing because of inappropriate use; and we work our way back. From that, based on the level of risk we assess to the product, we determine the appropriate interventions.
I point out that without Bill C-6, we would not have the power of recall. Right now, that is something we must negotiate on a voluntary basis, which can be quite time-consuming. The biggest criticism we face is we are too slow to act when necessary to protect the health of Canadians. That is an important element when facing the most severe risks.
Senator Munson: While we have been sitting here and listening to your expertise, which is appreciated, most of us have received emails on our BlackBerry phones. Since sitting here, I have received about half a dozen emails about the constitutional aspect of Bill C-6.
What people are saying — and I think we have to try to answer part of this question today — is that the denial of due process of law being employed in Bill C-6 is unconstitutional.
I will read one of the emails into the record:
Dear Senator,
The denial of due process of law being employed in Bill C-6 is unconstitutional. According to the book of criminal procedure, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act are the supreme laws of this country and any legislation that voids our rights is ``of no force or effect.'' Why is our government not only passing an unconstitutional law, but fast-tracking it too? How can we trust that this legislation is for the good of the nation and all its citizens when such manoeuvring is being used to pass it? This bill must not be passed. It is unconstitutional, illegal and treasonous. You, as senators, are there to protect us and not to take our rights away.
I do not necessarily share any of these views, but these are the views we are receiving. That is one of the reasons, besides privacy, why people are around this table.
You have said that the minister is satisfied on surviving a Charter challenge. Can you alleviate some of the concerns of those thousands of people sending us these emails, which we have to address?
Mr. Glover: I cannot resist — has anyone received an email about the wonderful performance I have been providing today? No, I did not think so.
I do not mean to make light of the issue. We are aware of a very active lobby group that is concerned about certain elements of this bill and has mobilized quite effectively. In today's society, with all of the different tools that are available — form letters and others — they have been very effective in bringing forward some fairly fundamental concerns.
I would turn to the information I have left with senators, to try to address what we understand are their questions and what we believe are appropriate responses to those questions.
The short answer is the simple fact that those industries that are involved in producing safe products support this; they are not concerned. They understand they work in a regulated industry and that government oversight — not intervention, but oversight — is necessary to ensure that the systems they are using work so that Canadians and Canadian businesses can have confidence that the products they sell to Canadians or that they export are safe, not just for Canadians but for consumers in the other markets they will export into. Things like the general safety prohibition, the inspections we do, which are to ensure compliance that the system is working, are valid and appropriate as we move through this legislation.
I cannot conjecture why people are so concerned. If they are making safe products and are able to demonstrate that those products are safe, we will have no issue with them. We have no issue in kicking down anyone's doors, of walking in and seizing products haphazardly or randomly. We are interested in ensuring consumers have access to safe products, and working with the industries to do that in an effective way.
The Chair: We just want to make sure that the writing of the law matches your intent.
Mr. Glover: I did not want to be repetitive, but we believe it does. There are powers in here that we use to protect animals; and we are saying that humans should have that same level of protection.
The Chair: I will go to the solicitor on this constitutional question.
Ms. Labelle: To go to the point about the constitutionality of the bill, I would like to first set out for you the fact that we are dealing with two aspects within the same bill. There is the use of criminal law power; that is one thing.
When we are speaking of inspectors, we are talking about an administrative process aimed at achieving compliance. The individual's liberty is never at stake. They are never in a position where they will face imprisonment because of non-compliance. That would happen only if it became criminal in nature.
The standards with respect to due process in the context of administrative action and achieving compliance are different than those used in the criminal law process. In both cases there is due process. In the instance of an administrative action and obtaining compliance, that inspector's behaviour is reviewable by the Federal Court of Canada. That is due process. If it crosses the line into the area of criminal activity, due process is ensured by the Criminal Code and the courts that administer criminal law.
The Chair: Earlier you talked about Charter compliance. Can you provide the committee with a written copy of the opinion that Bill C-6 is constitutionally compliant?
Ms. Labelle: I will follow that up with my colleagues.
The Chair: It would help us to provide responses on the issue.
Senator McCoy: I believe you are sincere in that you do not intend to do this or that and that you have only the best intentions. My question is: Why would we entrust Health Canada with extraordinary powers given its track record of failing Canadians time and time again over the last decade? How have you demonstrated that we should trust you to exercise your discretion in a way that is reasonable when we have seen it fail to be reasonable in instance after demonstrated instance over the past decade?
Mr. Glover: I thank the senator for her very direct question. Quite frankly, my simple response is: Have us back. Take a look at what we have done and how we have used these powers. We know that through globalization and the pace of innovation, these are powers that other jurisdictions feel are important to protect their citizens. We think that Canadians should be afforded the same level of protection.
We exist in a post-market environment and through elements like mandatory reporting, we will figure out where the problems are, where we will focus our interventions. I would be happy to report back on how we use these powers in line with that direct link. We will be targeted and deliberate. It will be driven by the evidence around the problems that come to us in terms of compliance and complaints from consumers, all toward protecting the health and safety of Canadians.
I would suggest to the committee that we have been deeply criticized for being far too slow in dealing with these issues. Consumers want greater protection. The first questions my colleagues have to deal with are: What did you know? When did you know it? Why did it take so long to do something about it? Canadians want and expect more from their government when there is a problem. They would like us to stay out of the way when there is not a problem. Through mandatory reporting, we will be able to target our interventions.
Senator Day: I have many issues with respect to this proposed legislation. I have asked many questions and we have been working on clarifying some of those points, and I thank them for that cooperation.
There is quite a bit of material that I have not had a chance to review. Given the short time we have, we cannot go through the various areas of the bill. I will express my general concerns. I think this bill goes much further than it needs to go. You have admitted to that by saying that there will be regulations indicating that certain charities will not be covered.
I believe that you have cast the net far too broadly to achieve the intent of the bill. Everyone at this table supports the general purpose of the bill — to update consumer product safety legislation and the Hazardous Products Act, which has been around for a long time.
The administrative process with respect to inspectors causes me a great deal of concern. You said that this in mainly about people who are in business but there are many examples of dealing with people who are not in business. These sections could be interpreted to include the hitting of someone with a fry pan whereby the person who bought the fry pan would have to file an incident report. The wording is so broadly cast that it does not exclude those situations. The way you seem to exclude them is simply to say, trust us; we will not go after those people. That causes us a great deal of concern. You said that you could satisfy us by having you back. We should have you appear before the committee again so that we can review some of the specific points in the bill.
The Chair: We will indeed.
I have two quick questions. In clause 23, the word ``thing'' appears. What is the definition of ``thing?'' I do not see it defined in the bill. Clause 37 refers to the Statutory Instruments Act. I am trying to understand why part of this bill would be exempt from application of the Statutory Instruments Act. That bothers me.
Senator Day: Chair, in the interest of time I can give you the definition of ``thing.'' I am a little concerned because I must leave to chair a committee.
The Chair: If you would give us a quick answer we will be out of here in five minutes, to both those questions.
Mr. Glover: With respect to a number of the assertions made by the senator, this applies to commercial activity. I will give you an example. Knives are sharp. They are meant to cut things. We will not say that they break the general safety requirement. Courts can interpret these concepts. They are understood and are subject to interpretation. It applies to commercial activities, the sale of a product as it moves forward in transaction, the importation and the manufacturing.
Senator Day: You should tell everyone the definition of ``sell.'' When you talk about the sale of a product, you have to look at the definition of what is meant by ``sell.'' To say simply that it deals with the commercial sale of a product skims over the whole issue. The definition of ``sell'' in the bill is so broad that a sale does not even have to be for commercial purposes. It could be a yard sale or your church bazaar.
Mr. Glover: With respect, all of those are covered. We do warnings every year; please do not sell baby walkers because they are prohibited. Yet, people try to sell products that are regulated or prohibited at flea markets and garage sale every year. A transaction occurs with the sale of an item, which means that commerce is occurring; and we want to prevent the continued sale of unsafe products.
If you are in possession of a crib that has been recalled because it is no longer safe, do we want it to be sold for $5 at the end of someone's laneway? No.
Senator McCoy: No, but do we want you interfering in our lives? No.
The Chair: We are trying to find out the definition of ``thing.'' Is it the same as an ``article''?
Senator Day: It is not defined.
Ms. Labelle: This is a drafting convention; we used the word ``thing'' to capture both ``article,'' which is a defined term, and ``conveyances.''
The Chair: What about the Statutory Instruments Act?
Ms. Labelle: The Statutory Instruments Act applies to interim orders and regulations made under this act. It does not apply to an inspector's order, an inspector's order being a specific thing and not being a rule of general application.
The interim orders and the regulations made pursuant to the interim orders are exempted from section 3, which is registration, and section 9, which are deeming provisions with respect to coming into force. There are very practical reasons for those exemptions. They are so that under the circumstances, the government can act as expeditiously as possible. However, the orders and the regulations when they are confirmed by the GIC remain permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. They need to meet the publication requirements.
If we are dealing with regulations that are already to be tabled in the house, they get Parliament's oversight before it is made, and they will have Parliament's oversight again after it is made.
Senator Banks: Page 22, clause 37(3) says:
(3) An interim order is exempt from the application of sections 3 and 9 of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Does this bill not say that?
Ms. Labelle: Yes, and I did confirm that they are exempt from section 3 and section 9, but they are not exempt from the totality or from the entire Statutory Instruments Act. It is for two very limited purposes.
Senator Day: The definition of ``sell'' includes ``. . . distribute to one or more persons, whether or not distribution is made for consideration . . .'' When you hear the word ``sell,'' you have to think of the definition that this bill has for the word ``sell,'' not the normal word that you would think of for the word ``sell.''
Mr. Glover: If I may respond, I am not trying at all to be argumentative. We do have instances where industry willingly gives product away, and we do not want unsafe product to be exempt from this simply because it is given away. If it is not appropriate for sale, then the company must deal with it, take the corrective action and not simply give it away.
The Chair: On that note, we have to wrap up for today, but we would like you to come back and we will continue on with the questioning.
Senator Pépin: When will we discuss the translation?
The Chair: Any time Senator Pépin. I would have had you down for that question. In any event, we will get a chance to explore further when we have these witnesses back.
(The committee adjourned.)