Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 8 - Evidence - October 29, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 29, 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 10:45 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Today we continue with our examination of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.
We have a panel of three people from three different organizations. We have Pamela Fuselli, Executive Director, Safe Kids Canada; Rick Smith, Executive Director, Environmental Defence; and Doug Geralde, Director of Regulator Relations for the Canadian Standards Association.
Pamela Fuselli, Executive Director, Safe Kids Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and to share Safe Kids Canada's views on the importance of passing Bill C-6, the consumer products safety act.
Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death to Canadian children and youth from age 1 year to 19 years of age. In fact, it is the leading cause of death to those up to the age of 34 years. However, we focus on safe kids and youth, and that is the age group to which we pay most attention.
To give you some idea of what that looks like, according to the Public Health Agency's data, in 2005 — the last year for which we have data — 720 Canadians under the age of 20 years died as a result of an injury, with almost 30,000 hospitalizations. About 46 per cent of these injuries involved consumer products, including furniture and toys.
Injuries from the use of consumer products are common, frequently serious and sometimes fatal. There are more than 18,000 annual emergency room visits for children as a result of product-related injuries.
Given the complexity and interconnectedness of today's global marketplace, there appears to be a discrepancy between product safety assumptions and consumer expectations. Survey results have shown that the vast majority of Canadians assume that a product is safe if it is available for sale on the market, and that it has been adequately tested for that safety.
In Canada, pre-market approval is not required. Product testing may not always be done and specific requirements may not exist under the Hazardous Products Act.
In 2007, Prime Minister Harper announced that product safety regulation in Canada is not as rigorous as it should be. He said that Canadians should not have to worry about the toys they are putting under the tree. That goes to be said for the upcoming holiday season in 2009.
With the proposed consumer product safety act, Health Canada would have the power to order a business or individual to stop manufacturing, selling or advertising a product that poses a danger to Canadians — specifically children. The product safety act is intended to set apart legitimate manufacturers from others operating in the globalized market.
Canada is currently lagging behind our major trading partners in the United States and the European Union in protecting our citizens from dangerous consumer products. Some real examples of health consequences include strangulation, falls, poisoning and suffocation.
Currently, the Hazardous Products Act does not permit Health Canada to order a mandatory recall of a consumer product that poses a real danger to human health or safety. Instead, the government must negotiate to achieve a voluntary recall, which does not always result in compliance.
Health Canada should have the necessary authority to resolve situations when a voluntary approach does not work, as is the case in the U.S. and the EU. Currently, both of these jurisdictions provide the government with mandatory recall powers.
The proposed new Canadian consumer product safety legislation is a positive step forward. Its three main pillars — active prevention, targeted oversight and rapid response — would enhance and modernize consumer product safety in Canada. There is a need to renew and modernize federal product safety legislation to better reflect the globalized marketplace and to be consistent with societal and consumer expectations for health and safety. We need to ensure that products sold in Canada are safe.
Safe Kids Canada recognizes the importance of industry and the Canadian economy. We understand that there are some concerns in terms of inspector and recall powers, and that there will be further consultation as the details of the legislation are finalized. Our main goal is to keep Canadian children safe and to support actions that will contribute to the reduction of serious injuries and death. We feel that Bill C-6 is a key component to achieving this goal.
Rick Smith, Executive Director, Environmental Defence: Thank you for the opportunity to appear today on this topic of great importance for Canadians. I am Executive Director of Environmental Defence. We are a national charity and work on issues related to human health and the environment. I hold a PhD in biology and I am co-author of a book that has been on The Globe and Mail's bestseller list for much of the past five months called, Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health. That book deals specifically with consumer product safety in Canada.
Although I often find myself and my organization finds itself being critical of the government actions and of Health Canada, I am pleased to be here today to voice my organization's strong support for Bill C-6. At a time when many Canadians are frequently cynical about politics, the unanimous adoption of Bill C-6 by the House of Commons is testament to the fact that some issues are so important and so central to what concerns Canadian families that even in the present super-heated partisan atmosphere of Parliament, there are some issues over which all parties can come together. Certainly, it is our hope that the Senate, the chamber of sober second thought, does the same and expedites passage of Bill C-6.
As we have watched the debate unfold in the Senate, my colleagues and I have been surprised and puzzled by the vehemence of opposition to Bill C-6 that many senators seem to be reporting in their offices. At this committee's meeting on October 21, for example, senators commented on the sheer volume of correspondence that they received on this bill and wondered aloud regarding where all of this concern was coming from.
I will focus my remarks today on the questions: Why has this bill, which was unanimously adopted by the House, sparked so many emails into your offices? Are these criticisms warranted?
In order to respond, my colleagues and I spent the past few days doing some in-depth research online, trying to track back these emails and find websites that have these bulk email tools aimed at your offices. In a nutshell, it would appear that the vast majority, if not virtually all, of the emails you have received that oppose the bill and call for significant amendments to Bill C-6 originate with a very small interconnected group of people who are either outright conspiracy theorists or have personal axes to grind with Health Canada, or both.
For instance, and not meaning to single out a senator, we Googled the wording of an email that Senator Munson read into the record in the Senate on October 21. It originated from a website called falseflagflu.com. This is a militant anti-vaccine website that claims at length and amongst many other things that vaccines are part of a global agenda by governments to depopulate the earth. One of the organizations that has been front and centre in the anti-Bill C-6 lobby is the Natural Health Products Protection Association. The president of this organization, Shawn Buckley, is also the current legal counsel for Truehope Nutritional Support Ltd., which has a long history of wrangling with Health Canada respecting issues of compliance with existing regulation. Shawn Buckley also acted for a man named Trueman Tuck, who runs more than a dozen interconnected websites, most of which have bulk email tools aimed at your offices. On a number of these websites, Mr. Tuck prominently features — and I am not making this up; this is alongside the tool that allows emails aimed at your offices — content claiming that 9/11 was caused not by terrorists but by a global conspiracy run by David Rockefeller. This global conspiracy is also responsible, apparently, for creating and propagating the H1N1 flu, again to depopulate the earth. These are the websites that are responsible for the emails you have received.
How is all this relevant and why did I spend the last two days investigating strange corners of the Internet? This is relevant because it is clear that this lobby effort, though very organized, is reflective of a small minority view. They have somehow roped Bill C-6 into their strange world view, and I would ask that you consider that strongly in your deliberations.
The second source of criticism of the bill comes from industry. In contrast, of course, with the group I just mentioned, these industry associations are credible organizations. I would submit to you, however, that the amendments they seek to Bill C-6 are simply unreasonable. I will mention three of these criticisms. First, industry would like notice of an inspection and an opportunity to respond to Health Canada before an order to recall a product is issued. How is it reasonable that a regulated entity could expect advance notification of an inspection? This does not happen. Police do not broadcast where they will set up speed traps. Restaurant inspectors in my city of Toronto do not give advance notice to restaurants before the inspection occurs. Frankly, if an industry is not taking its health and safety obligations seriously and is unwilling to take voluntary corrective action, why should suppliers be afforded an opportunity to respond to actions ordered by the government?
Second, suppliers only want the minister to disclose confidential business information after the business is notified. They want an opportunity to comment on the accuracy, scope and fairness of the information proposed to be disclosed. There are ample protections in this statute for confidential business information. It is important to note that this information would be shared only when necessary to protect the health and safety of Canadians or the environment. The need for advance notice to a business could delay unnecessarily disclosure, with possible negative consequences to human health or safety.
Third, industry is claiming that the mandatory reporting provisions in Bill C-6 are not feasible and that it would be too difficult for suppliers to meet an initial report in two days and a subsequent more detailed report within 10 days. These provisions have been in effect in the United States for almost three decades. In the U.S., incident reports are even more strenuous whereby they are required ``almost immediately'' — within 24 hours. How can we believe that this is possible in the United States but not possible for Canadian industry? The 10-day more detailed report required by Bill C-6 aligns to requirements in the same U.S. law as well as to that which is currently in place in my province of Ontario.
In closing, I would like to submit that Bill C-6 is a reasonable and balanced statute. It is the product of considerable thought and stakeholder input. It is very important to enact as quickly as possible to bring Canada up to the same standards as those that exist with our major trading partners. If we do not do this quickly — and there are many examples of this from history — and if we maintain these lesser standards, as compared to the EU or the United States, we most certainly will become a toxic dumping ground for bad products that have lost their market share in other jurisdictions. I look forward to your making sure that Canadians do better than that.
Doug Geralde, Director, Regulator Relations, Canadian Standards Association: I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I have been with the CSA for 33 years. I spent three years in certification of equipment and the last 30 years doing investigations into product failures, analysis and working with the coroners, fire marshals and various regulatory bodies across Canada. I have been dealing with unsafe products for much of my working career.
The CSA Group is a global company and its divisions have offices, testing laboratories and affiliates in more than 60 countries around the world. The CSA Group is an independent, not-for-profit membership association serving business, industry, government and consumers. The CSA Group consists of three divisions: a standards division — Canadian Standards Association; a division of CSA International, which does certification and testing of products; and a third division called OnSpeX, which does performance evaluations of products. Consumer product safety is paramount for CAS. It is why we come to work every day.
CSA Group wishes to commend the Government of Canada for its leadership in the consumer products safety area with Bill C-6. CSA Group believes that consumer safety is paramount and as such, we support the intent of Bill C-6.
The CSA Group would like the Government of Canada to ensure there is one consistent, national, harmonized system for electrical product safety, as well as harmonized systems for the safety of other products such as gas, plumbing, building and occupational health and safety.
I think we can build from that. However, it is important that we have a national system that people can go to, and also so that we can see trends happening more quickly. Bill C-6 is an excellent template for the provincial governments, and many of them have worked with Health Canada in that area.
We also want to recommend that we look carefully into the counterfeits that are addressed in Bill C-6. Counterfeits of products are a growing problem; they appear in virtually every product area around the world and Canada is no exception. We need stronger regulations and acts to deal with those products because they are very much safety related.
CSA Group also supports the development of a national product incident reporting system, with memoranda of understanding with the provincial and territorial governments to share pertinent information. We also support the development of one national database for product recalls and public notices. With one such database, the public would have one spot for this information and we could coordinate that activity quickly. In my activities with coroners, fire marshals and the various regulatory bodies, they seem to be in favour of that as well. They do not want the duplication or triplication that comes with the administration, nor do they want the confusion for the public.
CSA Group would like to draw the government's attention to the assistance of the National Standards System, which can help us to achieve some of the key goals of Bill C-6. The bill creates regulation-making powers in relation to matters including testing, labelling and instructions. We feel these are also key for public safety.
The National Standards System, as administered by the Standards Council of Canada, provides a set of nationally and internationally recognized rules by which accredited bodies develop standards or test products for conformity with the requirements of standards. Accredited standards' development bodies develop requirements that can and do address product labelling, testing, warning labels and product instructions in accordance with the rules for consistency, transparency and neutrality, which are all key.
At CSA Group, where a standards and certification solution exists, we can help with creating one within the existing processes of the National Standards System. We urge you to capitalize on that opportunity as a partner in this activity.
The safety of many of the consumer products covered by Bill C-6 is also regulated by the provincial and territorial legislation. This creates much uncertainty regarding authority and enforcement. In order to find clarity in this area, CSA Group encourages the Government of Canada to enter into agreements with all the provinces and territories to create a seamless regulation throughout the country. We recognize that Health Canada, as well as some of the provincial and territorial authorities, has already begun that effort.
CSA would like to offer the following recommendations for the Senate's consideration. First, the Government of Canada should establish a working group with relevant provincial and territorial authorities, with the goal of creating a single and consistent national system for the removal of unsafe products from the Canadian marketplace. We think that under the minister, there is some talk of a working group, but if we can coordinate that activity across Canada, we can ensure that all citizens in Canada are free from unsafe products.
In addition, we would like the Government of Canada to consider strengthening the powers in clauses 26 and 27 of the bill to ensure that unsafe products are destroyed and cannot re-enter the marketplace through another method of disposal, such as auctions or resale. In my discussions with the UN, there is concern about these unsafe products being sent to developing countries. We spend time capturing them, and eventually what happens is that some companies offer them for 10 cents on the dollar and then they show up again. In some cases, I have seen unsafe items captured in one province and a year or two later, those products are for sale in another province. The items are usually stored for a while and then put back on the market in another location. These captured products have health and safety issues related to them.
Where possible, I would also recommend the Government of Canada cross-refer to the standards and certification solutions provided by the National Standards System when creating regulations because those standards and regulations are geared toward safety.
In conclusion, I want to thank you for your time and allowing CSA Group to appear before the committee, as we all share the paramount concern of consumer safety. Thank you very much for your efforts.
The Chair: One of your recommendations was an advisory group. It was put into an amendment in a House of Commons committee on this issue. Does that meet your suggestion in that regard?
Mr. Geralde: I think that is the direction. I just was not sure if that amendment represented the provincial and territorial groups as well. If it does, that is fine.
The Chair: I understand that it does. We will check to ensure that is the case.
Health Canada, when they were before us, talked about regulations that were being drafted. We are not sure about the timing of those regulations, but we will find out. Also, they talked about policy and guidelines, because we do not know when the regulations will come into effect.
Have any of you been involved in consultations with Health Canada in the development of policy guidelines or regulations?
Mr. Smith: We appeared in front of the house committee considering the bill. We and other stakeholders met with Health Canada repeatedly about the statute. For us, most of the consultation today has been about the statute. I am sure we would be involved in the regulatory consultation.
The Chair: You are available but you have not been consulted.
Mr. Geralde: Actually, I have been working with Health Canada and I have worked on hockey helmet issues for 20- 25 years. We are working with them in that process. I have worked with the Electrical Safety Authority, ESA, in Ontario on those products, as well as the Consumer Products Safety Commission, CPSC. We have been involved in those areas, providing our input and our experience in recalls on unsafe products and how to deal with them.
Ms. Fuselli: It is the same for us. We have been consulted on an ongoing basis.
The Chair: Mr. Smith outlined the nature of some of the emails we have been getting. Putting aside the extreme views for the moment, some concerns have been expressed by people around the table about some provisions in the bill — whether there is an overreach or unintended consequences that may flow from them. While no one questions the good intentions of the people of Health Canada, we are talking about law here, a statute.
One concern is about the kind of authorization that is given to inspectors to enter a place, and among other things, seize, and detain articles. This is being done without a warrant, except in the case of a residence, where a warrant would be required. Is there any concern about this matter about possible overreach in terms of the way the law has been written?
Mr. Geralde: I am sure that people might have concerns at the initial stages. I think in the course of the investigations into public businesses, you are going in and trying to gather information on the products. My experience is that it will not be that much of a problem. Certainly, in going into a residence, I understand they would need a warrant.
In the public businesses during normal business hours, in order to see what is available and gather the products, particularly in light of investigating a potential hazard, you want to get in and see these things and gather the information as soon as possible. In many cases, you can exonerate the business immediately and contain things or clear that matter up. Although people have those issues, I think the inspectors will work through it.
It is a collaborative effort in most of these investigations. We found that the majority of good businesses also want to act quickly. In some instances, the business is unaware of the problem and the inspector brings the problem to their attention.
Mr. Smith: Regarding the topic of these emails you have been receiving, I would be happy to provide you with the URLs so you can check them. I have been presenting to house committees and provincial legislative committees for years, and I have never seen an organized effort like this directed at a statute. I am quite confident in saying that if you looked at this series of interconnected websites, you would reach the conclusion that virtually all the emails you have been receiving originate from this very small group of, frankly, loopy people. It is clear to underline the scope of the effort they are undertaking. I would be happy to provide that information to you.
On your question in terms of these powers, I have no concerns whatsoever. In fact, I would be concerned if these powers were not in the statute. The statute is consistent with what is already the case in the United States, signed into law by George W. Bush, not normally known as the greenest, most consumer-friendly guy in the world. It was unanimous; the Consumer Product Safety Commission reforms were passed unanimously on a voice vote in the U.S. Senate last year. The powers in Bill C-6 are consistent with those reforms and with the European Union. They are consistent with existing federal statutes, such as the Health of Animals Act and the Aeronautics Act.
What is being contemplated is not unusual. I am the father of two small children and all parents of small children were concerned two summers ago with the extent of lead contamination in toys. There were massive toy recalls at that time. We have had problems with listeriosis and a variety of things. Consumers are concerned, and I would not be supporting the statute were these quite normal powers not included.
Ms. Fuselli: From the child safety perspective, we have seen the ability for inspectors to go in and remove products from stores as being a positive thing. There was an incident with yo-yo balls in Canada a number of years ago that were banned, and we received information they were being sold at certain stores. To be able to remove those products is one of the most proactive things you can do. Getting those products out of the stores is very important.
Senator Munson: Since I was Googled and my name popped up on your investigation, I have subsequently talked to national reporters. However, the record has to be set straight that after I brought that up — because it was happening as you were having that meeting — I said I do not necessarily share those views. I think that should be on the record. Sometimes it is difficult to separate ``main street Canada'' from ``conspiracy Canada,'' as you have described it. I did look at those websites, and I find those websites quite troubling. I want to ensure there is a balanced view in what I have said.
We still live in a democracy where viewpoints are expressed. We may not like them, but they are out there, and we get flooded by literally hundreds and thousands of these emails. You want to ensure that as you represent Canadians that you bring forth their positions.
What about the unintended consequences? For example, people who make small crafts or the stay-at-home moms or charitable organizations that build these wonderful things for children to enjoy now will be seeing a lot of paperwork. We are living in a recessionary time, and the worry may be that having to put that kind of time together will cause small businesses like this or family operations to cease.
Mr. Geralde: I understand the concern. I have other concerns, as founding chair for the Canadian Anti- Counterfeiting Network, CACN. For example, in bad economies we will find counterfeit components and unsafe products dumped if we do not have Bill C-6. We will find them in our marketplace, and they go into the components of these small crafts. They do not have the long supply chain knowledge and support systems of a larger company. We have to rely on the fact that the components they use are safe.
While I understand the concern about the extra work, those companies cannot withstand recalls and unsafe products. They go out right away. We exacerbate that problem with the public by getting a bad name out there. We need the legislation and the impact to do this to ensure we do not have these products and components coming into our area.
Ms. Fuselli: When we looked at what people sell at garage sales, small businesses and so forth, safety is not necessarily one of their primary issues. We would be more than happy to have information out there for small businesses and for people who create their own products to ensure that they take a proactive approach to safety. We would be happy to provide them with the tools to assess the products that they are producing and to engage them in the discussions about having a process to do that.
Certainly, when looking at any type of product on the market for children and for use by children, you have to be proactive in making safety a precautionary principle rather than an afterthought.
Mr. Smith: I would like to make clear, senator, that I was not trying to single you out. You were the only senator in Hansard the other day that made those comments. I certainly did not want to single you out in that regard.
What the house did and what I hope the Senate will do is weigh the priorities. Speaking as a father and as a Canadian consumer, I want to know that my government has set up a system that gives Canadians the same protection as Americans and Europeans have. I think it is fair, even with small businesses, to lay down some clear rules and let people know what the expectations are if they are making stuff for kids. If they deviate from that and persist in deviating from that, then it is fair to have consequences. Whether it is a big business or small business, we are talking about kids and kid's stuff especially, so we need to be careful.
It is not as though this statute is not responding to a clear problem. There have been massive toy recalls in this country, and they are ongoing. Two summers ago, my son had a small toy engine and it turned out the lead content in the paint was sky-high. It was subject to recall. We sent the engine back to the company and we got a new yellow engine as a gift for our troubles. The company then subsequently recalled that gift that they sent people because it turned out that the lead in that paint was too high, so we had to return that gift. This was two years ago. There was also the huge Toronto Star investigation on toys and so forth.
It is not as though there is not a clear problem. Frankly, toy companies, big ones and little ones, have not been doing their homework. If ever there was a clear identified need for retooling a Canadian statute, this is it.
Mr. Geralde: If I may, I will add one point. In the interests of small business, we want to build awareness into product design and make the manufacturers of those products equally aware. We have had an excellent safety system in developed countries that people take it for granted. We have to build on that safety awareness from the outset of the design to the manufacturer rather than have it be an afterthought. Awareness, understanding and consistency across the country will be beneficial for small and large manufacturers.
Senator Munson: For the record, thank you for your comments. A viewpoint has been alluded to by the chair and the witnesses this morning that Bill C-6 would allow Health Canada to seize property without warrants, seize private property without court supervision, destroy private property without court supervision, take control of businesses without court supervision, and impose penalties that could shut down many distributers, retailers and manufacturers. Do you agree or disagree?
Mr. Smith: I just do not buy it. Frankly, we deal with Health Canada every day. My book and our organization have been very critical of Health Canada for not being hard enough on manufacturers and retailers. This concern that somehow Health Canada will suddenly become a heavy-handed organization, I just do not buy. The evidence is not there. The bill does not propose that. There is nothing in the bill that is out of whack with existing Canadian law, whether it is meat inspection or other laws. We want government inspectors in those rare cases when a business is making something that is harmful to Canadians. We want government inspection. Even someone with the most conservative world view would acknowledge that there are certain few key roles for government in our society. On top of that list must be ensuring that things for sale on store shelves are safe because consumers cannot tell that for themselves.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Fuselli, you talked about the three pillars of this bill, one being rapid response. The bill proposes that you have 48 hours in which to notify the manufacturer and that a report to the minister must be completed within 10 days. However, the bill does not give a time frame in which the minister has to respond to that report. In other words, the minister could have the report for three months while the product continues to be sold across the country. Do you have a concern about that?
Ms. Fuselli: I would hope that would be addressed in the legislation because rapid response is a big concern. I can give you a couple of examples. One is a crib that was distributed in Quebec. There had been recalls in the U.S. In Canada, we are only able to send out product advisories. We need to be able to respond rapidly to recall or remove unsafe items. The response on the other end needs to be timely as well.
Mr. Geralde: On that point, rapid response must encompass the entire system. If it is in rapid response, then it is a high priority and would go to that. Naturally, I do not know if we need to write that into the statute. Once it fast-tracks or becomes a rapid response item, everyone within the chain must move on it, or you negate the whole effort.
Senator Callbeck: Why should it not be written into the legislation when it is already mentions 48 hours notification to the manufacturer and 10-day report to the minister? Why should there not be a time frame for the minister?
Mr. Geralde: I do not have any rationale for that one way or the other. I know that in my experience of gathering the investigations, it sometimes takes more than two days or seven days to simulate and determine the cause or failure, if it was that. I do not have a preference one way or the other.
Senator Callbeck: Do all of you share the concern that it should be addressed?
Ms. Fuselli: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: My next question pertains to international standards. Ms. Fuselli, you said that this bill is consistent with international standards. Yesterday, we heard from the Canadian Toy Association who said that they agree with the principle of this proposed legislation but that they would like to see it aligned with international standards. In fact, they said that they have experienced a lack of willingness to align with international standards.
Ms. Fuselli: Certainly, that has not been my experience in my engagement and consultation with Health Canada. I am not a lawyer, but I have looked at and heard assessments from others who have more expertise in the area of mandatory recalls and penalties and they seem to be consistent with both the U.S. and the EU.
Senator Callbeck: Would all of you want international standards?
Mr. Smith: Again, this bill is in keeping with what is happening in other jurisdictions. I would ask you to look at the recent record of the toy industry. It has allowed massive problems in a supply chain. Over the last couple of years, Mattel blamed China for product defects around the lead content incident. Then it became clear that the problem was not in China and some of the top executives from Mattel had to travel to China for a press conference to apologize abjectly to the Chinese government for dragging their name through the mud. Over the last few years, this industry has lost its way. Any parent who buys toys for little kids these days holds a deep mistrust of the toy industry, and for good reason. I do not buy the toy industry's arguments that what is happening here is out of whack with what needs to be done or with what exists in other places.
Mr. Geralde: I have done a lot of international work. It is my opinion that they are fairly consistent. Health Canada, CPSC, the Electrical Safety Authority in Ontario, and authorities in Australia and in the EU are all working together. Truly, we want a global solution to the safety of these products. We want consistency. We know that if we all do different things, we create confusion and problems. The efforts in Bill C-6 as well as the CPSC Improvement Act and the sharing of information are all geared to consistency and to being forceful in problem areas. The bill would not pose a problem for good companies in terms of compliance, although I recognize their concern. However, keep in mind that there are many bad companies and bad people doing the counterfeiting. They buy unsafe products, move them around and ship them back into the market place knowingly. We need to deal with that element as well.
Senator Martin: I feel that in our discussions and deliberations around this table we have looked carefully at the wording in the bill.
We have listened to the concerns of the business community. As a consumer and a parent, I felt that in a way, we were not paying enough attention to the voice of the consumer. We had not forgotten the paramount issue of safety, but it was pushed aside in looking at some of the unintended consequences in the proposed legislation.
It is our job to do due diligence, and I want to thank the senators for the work they are doing. However, I appreciate you bringing to light and giving us the voice of the consumers, the parents and the children. It is our job to protect these consumers.
The witness from the Canadian Toy Association, who was with us yesterday, confused me. In the third-last paragraph of his statement he wrote:
As to the alignment of international safety standards, the toy industry operates in a global marketplace.
That is true. The reason for this bill is to ensure we are modernizing our system to align with the other systems.
Aligning safety standards would enable closer cooperation and enforcement by Health Canada and its counterparts around the world, while facilitating trade and reducing costs to consumers.
At the end of this paragraph, he stated:
As Canada attempts to update its product safety legislation, we believe this is the perfect opportunity to encourage the alignment of international safety standards and to seek a way for this objective to be incorporated into Bill C-6.
That confused me, because does not Bill C-6 do exactly that — does it not align us with the international regimes? That was his statement, for the record. I did not point this out yesterday, but as we are listening to you and as Senator Callbeck referred to this again, they are indeed saying that we need to align with the international system.
We have talked about unintended consequences, but what are the consequences of not aligning, of remaining in this current system — not modernizing, as you say — and keeping up with the global market? What are the consequences, and what are your people saying, what are their concerns?
Mr. Geralde: There are requirements for mandatory reporting with the Consumer Product Safety Commission; and they have had incidents. When people call CSA —and often they think we are the government — they ask to direct them to the legislation that requires them to report. Right now, there is no such legislation, so they do not report. That is one problem area.
The destruction of goods, the seizure of these products and the awareness that a national program would provide would highlight these items and alert all the other countries so that the trans-shipment issue would cease to exist. If we do not have this legislation, if we do not have these processes in place, then we are out of the loop.
The other countries around the world know we are out of the loop. They know it is a problem. The bad businesses know we have issues with this. The bad businesses know to drop-shift counterfeits here.
We had a symposium with the International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization, over the last two days. We focused on consumers around the world. They said the same thing: Let us get this all together. Canada has a large gap. We have to block that gap and then refine it. If there are other concerns or issues, let us work through those processes. Many of the things we are doing, other countries are already doing.
Ms. Fuselli: There are two main things for us. Parents will continue to assume that the products they are buying in Canada are safe when, in fact, they have not been subjected to pre-market testing. Therefore, we will continue on the road that we are on and see similar types of actions around recalls. For us, part of the issue is around the time spent on negotiating advisories or recalls or voluntary bans from distributors and manufacturers on products, rather than removing some of the dangerous products.
An example of a product that is currently banned is the baby walker with wheels. It took about 10 years to get that product banned. In the intervening 10 years, there was a voluntary ban on those products by retailers and manufacturers who are, as Mr. Geralde says, responsible. However, we know that those products continue to be made available. I am sure most of you have driven past a street corner where baby walkers or other children's toys are for sale. They can be found at some of the smaller manufacturers and second-hand stores.
In those 10 years, that product could have been immediately recalled and/or banned. It is not a product that helps children walk any better. We know that it allows them to do things before their developmental stage — in most cases, fall down stairs and seriously injure themselves. We want to avoid other situations like that.
Mr. Smith: There was a famous incident in the 1970s surrounding children's pyjamas and a chemical called tris, a brominated flame retardant. For years and years, pretty much every pair of children's' pyjamas was painted with this chemical. It turned out that the chemical was highly carcinogenic and the U.S. government banned its use.
Manufacturers and retailers were stuck with this inventory of hundreds of thousands of pyjamas. What happened — this was well documented at the time — was all of a sudden, newspaper ads started popping up in garment trade publications across the U.S, saying ``we will buy tris pyjamas.''
We did some research on this for our book. Unscrupulous offshore retailers bought the entire inventory and shipped the pyjamas out of the United States, where they were now illegal and sent them to Europe, Southeast Asia and other places where standards were lower. There are other examples of products that have lost their market share because of the raised standards being shipped out to other jurisdictions.
I want to congratulate the government for addressing some of this issue. Just in the past year, finally, toxic chemicals in some kids' toys — phthalates, lead levels — have been modified in Canada to bring us up to standards that have long existed in the EU and that have existed in the United States since last year.
It did not get much press, but earlier this year Health Canada moved to harmonize standards with EU levels for brominated flame retardants in consumer electronics. In that case, it brought us further along than the U.S., but it harmonized us with the EU.
I think Canadians would expect that. If anything, Canadians would want to know that we have the best standards in the world, so that toxic things that cannot be sold here will be shipped elsewhere. Canadians would rather that situation than the other way around.
Senator Segal: I want to ask Mr. Geralde, is CSA in the testing business?
Mr. Geralde: That is correct.
Senator Segal: Therefore, a law that mandates pre-testing is good for business, is that right?
Mr. Geralde: Yes, it would be good for business.
Senator Segal: Mr. Smith, I understand that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which you referenced was signed into law by President Bush, actually has had large parts of its provisions delayed until 2010 because of some serious concern about regulatory overreach.
Can you give us any insights into that?
Mr. Smith: That is a complicated law with a variety of aspects to it. For instance, for certain chemicals in kids' toys, there is a negative option billing issue, for lack of a better word. There is a temporary ban on some chemicals in kids' toys; but if manufacturers can go back to the drawing board and demonstrate their safety, they have something like two or three years to come back to the government and get them back in. There are a variety of aspects to that bill that are moving forward at different paces. I am not aware that there has been any major overreach in that regard.
Senator Segal: I want to talk about the principle that is often taught in law schools around regulatory and policy accumulation and the negative effects of having too much regulation, too much regulatory change and consistent process makes it very hard, for even the best practitioners, to remain in compliance. I do not think for a moment you meant to suggest that Mattel or others have sort of a vice-president of unsafe toys. These things happen; whether because of carelessness or lack of due diligence is a legitimate question.
The problem tends to be that the government regulates straight, honest operators who want to follow the law. They have fiduciary and legal exposure. We tend not to have as much control over the bad operators. As we speak, for example, there are now billboards in Peterborough advertising cheap smokes for the local First Nations community. There are these billboards despite the tough decisions taken by this committee to clamp down on certain kinds of tobacco products because they are inappropriate, specifically because they are aimed at young people, and consistent with the Prime Minister's promise to clamp down. I worry that when we raise that issue with the good people at Health Canada, they will say: We do not do contraband; we just regulate tobacco, which is fair enough.
I worry that we may be creating relatively high, not necessarily inappropriate, regulatory standards for our friends in the toy and other product industries to comply with but, in fact, the operators that are operating in the grey or black market will be less hard to ascertain or deal with, and hence we may in fact just be constraining a legitimate supply in return for an utterly illegitimate supply and do not increase safety for kids or young people at all. Do you share any of that concern, or do you think it is really not all that important?
Mr. Smith: That is an interesting point. I have actually thought about that. I have a bit of a libertarian streak myself. In the city of Toronto, for instance, there are many new bylaws, and sometimes I have a visceral reaction; good Lord, can we not be trusted to take care of our own kids? Do we need yet another bylaw?
It is interesting and notable in this case that the CPSC reforms in the United States were wildly supported by Republicans, some of the same Republicans that were not keen on global warming or pretty much any other environmental or consumer product initiative.
That is what I said at the outset. Even at this moment of elevated partisanship in Parliament, if I might say, and the strange minority situation we are in, I think it is interesting this bill passed unanimously in the House of Commons. It is interesting that the CPSC reforms in the United States were passed unanimously, essentially on a voice vote, in the Senate.
There is something about this issue, about getting away from caveat emptor that fits with all political ideologies. Consumers cannot be expected to be rocket scientists or chemical engineers when they go to the store. How was I to know that the little engine I bought my son had elevated lead levels in the paint? Why should the Toronto Star have to point out to Health Canada that there are serious defects with children's toys, some of them with such high lead levels, that if a kid had swallowed that trinket, he or she would have died? Why does it fall to the Toronto Star under our system to point that out?
It makes it easy for all parties to support this issue because we are talking about raising our standards. We are not talking about some crazy new standards that do not exist anywhere else in the world. We are talking about standards that already exist in other Canadian statutes, standards that exist in the United States and standards that have long existed in the European Union. We deserve that protection.
Senator Segal: I have a small question about policy papers and guidelines. Our panel members have straightforward about their constructive history of working with Health Canada with those kinds of documents filling the gap between passage of a law and the actual proclamation of the regulations, which may take some time.
I assume that you are therefore comfortable that those policy guidelines would be as strict as you would want them to be. What would you have us do, as members of this committee, relative to passing a law when we have no idea, none, as to the content of those policy guidelines or directives.
In other words, we are passing what was referred to yesterday as loi cadre, a framework law that establishes some clear principles and some rights for public servants to make subsequent decisions. However, we do not actually know anything about that process that, as industry participants, you are very much involved in, and we are delighted to hear that you are. From our perspective, we are in that blank cheque territory. On the one hand, we would not want those policy directives to be unduly strict, but I think it is fair to say, Mr. Smith, you would be troubled if they were unduly lenient and if they did not in fact provide the measure of protection that you hope they might. We as members of the committee cannot give you any advice as to that content because we have no idea what is in them. I wonder what advice you might give us in terms of discharging our duty as legislators on this front.
Mr. Smith: You are right. The regulatory apparatus that will emerge will be complicated, and this committee will have moved on to other things. We deal with that all the time. That is the way things work around here. Sometimes things go haywire in the regulatory discussion. Most of the time they go okay.
I have been somewhat bemused by some of the arguments that you have heard from other deputants in previous days in some of these emails you have been getting. I have been bemused by this idea that Health Canada might turn into this kind of jackbooted organization that is wildly out of control. I am here to tell you that is not my experience with Health Canada.
Last year, we were very involved in the bisphenol A issue with baby bottles, a great example of how this government has done well. This government placed Canada at the head of the pack. Canada became the first jurisdiction to ban bisphenol A in baby bottles. We cannot say with 100 per cent certainty, but there is very good evidence — and it is interesting because there is better evidence every day, so I think this government will be proven right in hindsight. There is better evidence every day that this is a potent hormone-disrupting chemical that is having serious adverse affects on kids, and this government moved quickly to get rid of it in baby bottles.
We have been engaged with Health Canada to get the regulations straight. If anything, we do not think Health Canada has gone far enough. It is not like Health Canada is a crazed organization that will be breaking down doors and going after the baby bottle merchants. Our experience with Health Canada is it is a large bureaucracy full of a lot people trying to do their jobs, but as with most bureaucracies, it does not move that quickly and does not go far enough in most cases. I would rate the chances of Health Canada overreaching and going crazy and persecuting various companies as zero to negative 10.
Mr. Geralde: I am not at all sure I can give assurances, but where I do see this is in my discussions with the other regulatory authorities. In the system that we have worked with in the past, they recognize there is a void here. They are having problems with getting these products out of the market with the current structure. In addition to that, they want this to be a coordinated effort. There are checks and balances with each of those regulatory bodies from the business end, the politics of it. Ultimately, it is the unsafe products they are trying to deal with. That is the key here.
I do not think there is a problem from the perspective of the regulators. I do not think they worry about who does it or how it is done. The objective is to get it off the market immediately. That is the key to all the efforts that I have known with Health Canada and with provincial and international authorities. We have to get the unsafe products out because they jeopardize the entire system. Even businesses will tell you it damages the entire industry if the products are unsafe. That is where I have seen the support. I have not seen much opposition, or maybe they just will not come and talk to me. We have seen industry cooperation in other sectors and among the CSA Group constituents.
If there is any solace in that, the key is that this is an additional, major mechanism to get unsafe products out of the marketplace, and it covers the entire country.
Ms. Fuselli: I agree. I add that a comprehensive approach is important to keep in mind, and we have talked about collaboration and standardization. This legislation is not only around enforcement but it also involves the changes to the purchasing environment in which parents operate. It also requires education, and we have worked with Health Canada for a number of years, as well as other ministries, like Transport Canada, in terms of child passenger safety. This is not a stand-alone tool that will be used in isolation. It is in the context of efforts from the injury prevention community to educate and raise awareness of good policies to create safer environments and to have enforcement of those policies. We hope that most of the time it is a well-rounded approach to the prevention of those types of injuries.
The Chair: Mr. Smith, you mentioned unanimous approval in the House of Commons. It should be put into context in that amendments were made. There were a number of issues, not all of which were resolved, in terms of the satisfaction of some of the members of the committee in the House of Commons. There were a number of amendments made in that period of time as well.
Senator Dyck: I will return to the issue of the number of emails that we have received. I thank you, Mr. Smith, for bringing that up, because senators have received an almost unprecedented number of emails. Like you, I wondered why. I did my own research, not as in-depth as yours, and I did link it to the falseflagflu.com website, and wondered about the concerns of the people. I do think there may be some that, as you put it, were on the fringe in that they were concerned about this being a precedent somehow linked to forced vaccinations and so on. Nonetheless, probably a large number had concerns that seemed real about the search and seizure powers of the inspectors and privacy concerns. It is difficult to know how to read them all or how to place them. Certainly, some of them had concerns that maybe had been addressed previously with regard to natural health products.
You said some were conspiracy theorists and some had axes to grind. With respect to the axes to grind, were you referring to natural health products? How do you see those concerns? Are they legitimate?
Mr. Smith: The company I mentioned is the Truehope company, which has had a multi-year regulatory battle going on with Health Canada. Their lawyer is the president of the Natural Health Products Protection Association, and he is linked to these other various strange websites. We are in the process of doing this, but, of course, in this age of the Internet, you can look at entire blocks of text, Google them, and find out where they came from, which is what we are in the process of doing. If you do that with the emails you are getting, and I know there are bunch of different kinds, you can find out which specific website they came from. On this network of interconnected websites, there are a few variants of these letters that you can track back, which is what we have started to do.
Returning to Senator Munson's comment, the emails originate on those websites, so by definition, whoever is sending you the email has to be frequenting those websites. You must ask: What is someone doing on that website to find the tool to send you those emails? That was the only point I was making.
Senator Dyck: In terms of the powers of the inspectors, I gather, probably from all of you, that you think it will happen only on occasion in rare instances. In fact, Mr. Smith, you used the phrase ``rare instances.''
Has that been the case in the U.S. and Europe, where more stringent laws are the case? It sounds as though they have similar powers in their laws and it seems to have worked for them. Have there been any cases of abuse of the powers of their departments of health?
Mr. Geralde: I do not know that I can qualify it regarding the international situation. I know that powers like the seizure of products exist within the electrical inspection industry at provincial and territorial levels, for example, under the Power Corporation Act and various acts. It is driven, usually, by a significant problem getting those products off the shelf. Many times, some of the severe things people are concerned about are quarantined but not destroyed. They quarantine them, and if it turns out there are explanations or a batch problem or something like that, those things are generally resolved quickly.
We are always concerned about giving people power and their getting exuberant with it, but mechanisms within all of those regulatory groups within their procedures and policies that must be followed. I have not heard too much. Whoever is a victim of it, obviously, feels it is a little harsh. However, within industry, I have not seen it come back in droves with concerns in that area.
As a matter of fact, many times in industry when a problem in a product area is captured and taken out of the marketplace, it saves the rest of the industry that is supplying the products. They see that as beneficial.
Mr. Smith: Senator, going back to your previous comment, when we deputed to the house committee, many amendments we were hoping to see in the statute were not included. Be that as it may, that is just the way things work around here. The statute is not everything we had hoped for, but here I am today asking you to pass it as soon as possible because I think it is light years better than what exists at the moment.
Senator Day: Do we know what amendments you would like to see? Do you know that senators are allowed to make amendments as well?
Mr. Smith: I know, and I am here asking you to make no amendments. Given that existing standards are higher in the United States and in Europe, for whatever marginal benefit there may be for some further amendments from you, on balance, the most important thing is to get this bill passed as soon as possible.
Senator Cordy: The first thing I should like to say is that we all want legislation that ensures that Canadians receive safe products. Whether we ask questions or not, it certainly does not modify our belief in safe products.
The Senate has the responsibility of sober-second-thought consideration of proposed legislation to ensure that it does not contain negative consequences. All bills are complicated. A piece of proposed legislation can be one page long but still contain elements that need serious consideration. The Senate should never rubber-stamp a bill. We should look at the bill closely to ensure that it does what it is intended to do and does not have harmful affects for all Canadians. We want a bill to be better for everyone. It is only in that light that we recommend amendments to a bill.
Do we have a national recall list or directory for products?
Ms. Fuselli: Health Canada has a toll-free number to find a list of recalls. From our interaction with the public, we have found that it is not well known.
Senator Cordy: I did not know about it.
Ms. Fuselli: People have to go that number to find out about recalls. The information is not quickly available to the public.
Mr. Geralde: The short answer is no, we do not have such a list. We post recalled and counterfeit products at the CSA. The Electrical Safety Authority produces such a list in Ontario and British Columbia has one. Health Canada has recalls in their area as we work with them on hockey helmets and such products. The issue is that there is not one contact to search for all recalls, which we definitely need so that everyone can be informed.
Senator Cordy: Should that be part of this bill or another piece of legislation so that we have an accessible recall directory? I did not know about the 1-800 number and I am a parliamentarian. I am sure if I did a survey in my city of Dartmouth, I would find that very few people know about it.
Ms. Fuselli: It is important information for families to have when they are considering new purchases or items that they currently have in their homes. It should be well known and easily accessed.
Mr. Geralde: I agree. We also need a national incident reporting system. The best tool that I know of for investigating is determining incident patterns quickly. If we were to have such a system, an incident in Ontario and one in New Brunswick could be quickly connected to help with an investigation. Under our current system, we work in isolation, which does not trigger regulatory issues. The two things we need are: a national incident database system and a national recall list. With both, we would be able to educate consumers, and coordinate industry, government and the public.
Mr. Smith: That is a great idea. I am frantically leaping through the bill because I do not recall if there is a provision for a recall list. If it is not in the bill, then we could easily do that. We would push for such a national recall list through the regulatory process.
I can think of other examples. We were involved in an assessment for the Chemicals Management Plan and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The whole Chemicals Management Plan is not in CEPA, 1999. As a result of that assessment, the government created a special one-stop information website. Another example is the Species at Risk Act, which had no provision for a one-stop shop for information on endangered species notifications. The government has created that through the regulatory process.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for that information. One of the unintended consequences I have concerns about pertains to the incident registry that was mentioned. An incident can occur during the usual use of a product. For example, as an example, you talked about the crib. We all know that we do not need an incident to happen with a crib; we just need to know that an unsafe product is on the market.
I am still blown away by the lawsuit in the United States whereby a person had a cup of coffee on their lap and sued successfully because the hot coffee spilled on their lap. Now, you buy a cup of coffee in a cup that says, ``Caution: product may be hot.'' One cannot help but wonder what happened to common sense. In referring to what an incident is, a gentleman gave an example yesterday about a puck hitting someone on the head, but that is part of the natural playing of the game of hockey. You hope it will not happen, but it can happen. Are those two events — the hot coffee spill and the puck — considered incidents? Should we not have a clear definition of ``incident?'' A knife will cut; should you have a label on the knife to warn people of that? I am not trying to be petty. I am simply thinking from the perspective of a manufacturer. What constitutes an incident? Should the definition be clearer in the bill?
Mr. Geralde: It is difficult. We use the word ``incident'' but perhaps the word should be ``investigation'' or something else. There are many frivolous things. You do not want someone phoning in to say that something is bothering them. The CSA prioritizes incidents, as would anyone in this business. The immediate priority is one that involves death or injury or, in the case of fire, a large loss. Then they drop down the list.
At the CSA, we look for fire and shock because that is relative to the standards, as opposed to performance issues. You do not want to get mixed up in performance only, such as how well a toaster browns the bread. When the slot width in a toaster was enlarged to accommodate Texas toast, we received a complaint about a fire. The fire marshal brought the toaster to us for investigation and we found that the carriage, which allows the toast to pop up when done, had been taped down. The owner was upset because when we widened the slot of the toaster, we did not change the timer so that he could cook his pork chops in the toaster. The grease from the meat had accumulated and eventually caused a fire. We have to sift through those kinds of incidents. That sifting process goes on with anyone handling complaints. I am sure that when constituents call in, most of them have legitimate concerns.
Senator Cordy: Do you have a definition of ``incident''? The reality is: There are frivolous incidents. You and I have indicated a few. Does the CSA have a definition and should it be in the legislation?
Mr. Geralde: We do not have a definition of ``incident.'' We chose the word because it is a generic term. We filter it down once we have the call. You do not want to be inundated with all the complaints but even some of these seemingly insignificant things develop into patterns.
Senator Cordy: That would be a pattern, not an incident.
Mr. Geralde: Yes, but the incident reports are collected and you pull them out when another one occurs.
Senator Cordy: That is correct.
Mr. Geralde: I do not have a good answer for you. We gather the incidents and we triage them, with injuries and death at the top.
Senator Cordy: According to the bill, they cannot prioritize the incidents as you do. If they have an incident, even though someone used a product incorrectly, such as a pork chop in a toaster, they would have to report it.
Mr. Geralde: Yes. I talked with Health Canada early on about these issues. There is a certain amount you have to establish if you are a company, no matter what. If someone phones in and says that a product caught on fire, people's definition of ``caught on fire'' or ``smelling a little bit of smoke'' or ``contained'' are all different. Often I have heard that someone calls in and says this is a such-and-such washing machine, when it is not; they just have different terms.
A certain amount of preliminary investigation must be done before you even report, because you do not know whether there is validity to it. Businesses end up doing that. They do that at CPSC and in Europe. They establish that there is a legitimate incident, a core concern, an issue raised, that it is their product, and then they forward it on.
Some businesses say that if they get a complaint, they will have to forward it because they do not want to do any risk analysis or sifting of information. This does not meet the intent of what everyone is trying to do and it bogs the system down. People at the beginning throw in everything and they slowly realize that it works its way through.
Senator Cordy: The problem is that when it is in the law, it is the law.
Mr. Smith: I will answer your question in two ways. First, there is some qualification around the term ``incident'' in clause 14 of the bill, which seems to be adequate.
Second, in my experience with Health Canada, given their inherent bureaucratic conservatism and the fact that they have a heck of a lot of things to do, I am quite confident in leaving to them a certain amount of the filtering. Given the qualification in the bill and given the further qualification that will come with the regulations and policies, I am quite certain that, if nothing else, due to staff capacity, they will be filtering some of this stuff.
Senator Cordy: But it is the law.
Mr. Smith: It is, but it is qualified in the statute.
The Chair: Moving on to Senator Day from New Brunswick. I might add that Senator Day is the official critic of Bill C-6 and Senator Martin is the official sponsor of Bill C-6.
Senator Day: Let me start by welcoming you all here. I will touch on a few points that have been made so that I understand your position.
With regard to the alignment with international standards and Senator Martin's intervention asking you about what had been said yesterday, there are two types of alignment. One is an alignment with respect to procedural items, such as recall, allowing the department to have recall rights, and there are alignments with respect to standards.
I understood that yesterday the discussion related more to standards of products. Products are sold all over the world, and we did not want to have a standard here, like you have to have four wires in your toaster, that kind of thing, so that the international product could not be sold here in Canada. We did not want to be below it, but we did not want to be above it. That is what I understood, but you seem to focus on the procedural-type standards.
Mr. Geralde: I was not here yesterday, so maybe I misinterpreted the question.
Senator Day: I want to make the point to clarify the record in that regard.
Mr. Geralde: To that point, our standards division works with ISO to harmonize the standards. We adopt an international standard and if there is another standard in North America, we harmonize that standard. Only at that point do we do a Canadian standard. The pressure is always on to ensure we are consistent with everyone.
Senator Day: I think that most of us, if not all of us, agree that Canada, as an international trading partner, has to conform. It is important to have harmonization with respect to the standard of the product and the paint that goes onto it.
You seem to suggest, or at least I got this impression, that Bill C-6 would not apply to the provinces. You were saying that Bill C-6 is a good template and that we need provincial cooperation. Is this not a law that will apply across Canada to all consumer products?
Mr. Geralde: Yes, it does. The electrical inspectors have jurisdictional authority and Health Canada works with them. Many of the items in Bill C-6 the provinces want also. It comes through, and maybe it is not the template per se as much as it brings together a more homogenous effort.
One of the things the provinces have difficulty doing is working with Canada Border Services Agency with the restriction of products coming into the country. It is very important to coordinate with them, and they are unable to do that, for whatever reason. The ability to work with Bill C-6 and Health Canada or a federal agency allows that to work much more fluidly. That is part of what they are doing.
I am not sure if that answers your question, but that is an example of what I was referring to.
Senator Day: The first part of your answer confirmed my understanding.
You indicated that clauses 26 and 27 could be improved. These are the clauses regarding procedures following seizure. Any time we hear a comment that something can be improved, we like to hear about that. That is why I was asking Mr. Smith for his proposed amendments. He is reluctant to give them to us at this time, but maybe you are not reluctant.
Mr. Geralde: I am inexperienced at the Senate, so I will take these lessons and maybe be more like Mr. Smith later on.
My concern comes from activity around counterfeit products. These are the bad apples. They are generally inconsistent in their quality, and in many cases they are unsafe. In my work with Interpol and with law enforcement and tracing back, I found that unsafe products and hazardous materials are being shipped back instead of being buried. The products go to developing countries, where they do not have the laws in many cases, such as China, and they come back as finished products. The concern with these products is that no one wants to be left, when the music stops, holding the bag with the product and no money. Therefore, they try to sell the product 10 cents on the dollar, as Mr. Smith indicated for the pyjamas. These are often the most hazardous products.
One of the issues we have is we have to find a mechanism for destroying the hazardous products. Counterfeit drugs are being shipped to Africa and they are going to different areas. We are one of those victims right now, in Canada, with our lack of legislation.
Senator Day: Do you believe these sections do not achieve the result that you are looking for and they can be improved upon?
Mr. Geralde: I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with whether it is the statute that we do or if it is in the process or procedures that we do. If we capture these products and seize them, I am concerned with the disposition of these products. I do not want them showing up again in another area, particularly when they are unsafe. I am not sure whether you attack it at this level or with another regulation.
Senator Day: I understand what you are trying to achieve. When you get a chance to reflect on these sections, if you have any specific improvements that you feel could be made, please send them to the clerk and she will circulate them to all of us.
When you are looking at those clauses, my concern with clauses 23, 24, 25 and 26 — this is generally under the heading of ``Procedures Following Seizure'' — is that there is no definition of ``thing.'' We are talking about a ``thing,'' and there is no definition of what the ``thing'' is. It could therefore be whatever your imagination might suggest.
I thought clause 27 was quite interesting. It reads:
If the owner of a seized thing consents to its forfeiture, the seized thing is forfeited to Her Majesty...
Her Majesty is now the owner of the product. However, you have to keep reading:
...and may be disposed of at the expense of the owner.
All the other parts of this say the owner is the person who had the thing, but in this section ``the thing'' has been forfeited to Her Majesty, so Her Majesty is the owner. Why do they not say ``at the expense of Her Majesty''? They say ``at the expense of the owner'' and the owner is Her Majesty.
You may want to think about that one, too. I have been thinking about it a lot. There is a lot of that kind of inconsistency in this bill. I will not go through all of the inconsistencies. You raised that particular section and I thought I would bring that to your attention.
With respect to clause 33, Ms. Fuselli, you talked about the need for the Department of Health to have provision for recall. Has there been a problem with the voluntary recall process? In particular, you talked about cribs and said they only issued an advisory. Were you implying that that advisory procedure was contrary to what the Department of Health wanted?
Ms. Fuselli: The short answer is yes. The United States was able to order a recall of this product and previous products over the last two years. Canada negotiated with the company to do a voluntary recall. This company did not want to do that, so they just put out an advisory. They subsequently provided a repair kit which was later deemed unusable as well, and an advisory was put out on that. Therefore, this product is still in homes and has the potential to cause death or injury.
The baby walker ban is another good example of 10 years of voluntary recall, which, in that case, did work for the larger manufacturers, but it still allowed the product to be made available through other means.
Senator Day: Even without cooperation from the industry, could Health Canada have received permission for a recall?
Ms. Fuselli: Not as of now.
Senator Day: There is a procedure for them to go through to get a recall?
Ms. Fuselli: To get a voluntary recall, yes.
Senator Day: Is there not a process, albeit cumbersome, to get the court to authorize a recall?
Ms. Fuselli: I do not know the answer to that question.
Senator Day: Your comments are based on what you have just told me, and that is helpful. Thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, we have talked a lot about kids' things and toys. Yesterday we heard from the toy manufacturers, and today Ms. Fuselli is here talking about toys and safety. We are all on board with you in that regard, but I am hopeful that we understand that this legislation is much broader than toys for children.
When Mr. Smith was speaking he said that we need this legislation with respect to making stuff for kids. Perhaps we should have some legislation for stuff for kids, because this is much broader than that.
We typically do not put down other witnesses or potential witnesses, particularly when they are not here to defend themselves. We talked about certain people who might have sent emails and messages, and I think it is incumbent upon us now, since they have been described as ``loony people,'' to give them an opportunity to be here and represent themselves.
The Chair: We are out of time.
Senator Day: We will have to ask these people back, or others, because there are many more points to be made.
The Chair: I will give the floor to the witnesses to respond to points or questions Senator Day has raised.
Mr. Smith: If you do have those people at this committee, I will certainly be here to watch, and I look forward to that.
Ms. Fuselli: It may not be possible for those of us in the not-for-profit world and parents to be as actively vocal, as our resources are limited. I would ask that you not be confused by the amount and volume of communication. There are others who we represent who have different views, but it is not always possible to make those views heard.
Mr. Geralde: I found that the pros and cons in the discussions were helpful. I continue to believe that it is imperative to have legislation. Bill C-6 is a good document, although any document can be improved. There is currently a significant vacuum, which is my biggest concern.
I want to thank everyone for their support. I believe that everyone here is sincere about ensuring that Canadians have safe products.
The Chair: On that note, thank you very much to all three of you for contributing to our knowledge on this subject as we continue our examination of Bill C-6. With that, we complete this part of the program.
Members of the committee, I need to consult you with respect to a budgetary matter. The draft report on poverty, housing and homelessness will come to the committee in another week. There will then be the question of the printing of the report for public consumption. It will have to go in its traditional printed form to the Senate, and will look similar to our report on early childhood education.
In terms of public consumption and going to the organizations that made representations to us and many of the organizations that deal with the issues of housing, poverty and homelessness, the subcommittee has another thought. We tried this thought out on the Internal Economy Committee in an informal way, and the chairman asked for a formal request from the committee. I need your approval to get a formal budget allocation.
The full report of the committee on housing, poverty and homelessness will be about 300 pages. That is just in English, and there are another 300 pages in French, perhaps a few more. There is also an executive summary, about 14 pages, and a foreword that the deputy chair of the subcommittee, Senator Segal, and I have signed.
There is quite a lot of paper in this report. While we have to give you the paper in draft form and full context and we have to give the Senate the full paper, for public consumption we thought of something a lot thinner. This is just an example.
I should point out, and as you can see, automatically there is quite a quality difference in the paper. There are photographs, charts, colour and all sorts of things here. Given the subject matter — poverty, housing and homelessness — we would tone it down from this. The reason I want to show you this is because it is a lot thinner than a 300-page book. It would be the foreword and the executive summary in print, which includes all proposed 74 recommendations.
In terms of the main report, we suggest going to newer technology by using a CD. Anyone who wants the full report or reference parts of full report could get it on that CD.
The reason we need the budget allocation of $15,000 is because central printing does the huge format. We do not have to pay for that. However, if we want to do something different, like this, that involves a CD that is formatted a bit differently, then it has to come out of the committee budget. We do not have the money, so we have to ask for it in the budget.
This document you should have in front of you is for $15,000 to be allocated for this purpose. If we went with the traditional form, it would be $11,000. Even though it comes from a central budget, as opposed to ours, it would be $11,000. The net difference is $4,000. Most of that $4,000 would be in design services. The whole $15,000 has to come from our budget and has to be allocated to use this other format.
I want your permission to submit on behalf of the committee this allocation for $15,000. We actually saved the budget of the Senate over $100,000 in travel that we did not take. Net-wise, we are giving them more money than we are asking for. I need your permission to be able to go officially to them. There is no guarantee they will approve it, but I have to go officially. Can I get your agreement to that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much, everyone.
(The committee adjourned.)