The Canadian Environmental Law Association is a public interest organization and an Ontario legal aid clinic. Alongside legal representation, our legal aid work is equally about law reform.
In responding to Bill , we think in terms of protecting the most vulnerable within the broader public interest. For the same reasons, my work for many years has focused on the greater vulnerability of children to pollution and chemical exposures.
Yesterday your committee received a report called “First Steps in Lifelong Health” from the Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and Environment, a group of medical, public health, environmental, and child care organizations, for which I chair the coordinating committee. We also provided a cover letter to orient you to that report's recommendations on product safety issues.
There is a great deal of scientific evidence about the greater exposure and vulnerability of children to pollution and toxic substances. Of greatest concern are exposures during pregnancy. At particular risk are women and children living in poverty, which affects over one million children in Canada. Evidence is growing that boys appear to be faring worse than girls, and aboriginal children in Canada can be at the greatest risk. Thankfully, most children in Canada are healthy, but there are rising trends in certain diseases and disorders that are very troubling, and pollution and chemical exposures are implicated.
After hearing Dr. Schwarcz's testimony last Thursday, I chose to focus my remarks on our educational work and so have also tabled with you today four of our publications. In the discussion about labelling on Thursday, Dr. Schwarcz said repeatedly that information about the risks of chronic toxicity of chemicals in products is far too complex for people to understand. I beg to differ. Our partnership has a proven track record of translating this complex knowledge with accuracy and integrity. Our primer on child health and the environment was extensively peer-reviewed by Health Canada officials among many other experts. The quality of our knowledge translation is one of several reasons why the Canadian Paediatric Society recently decided to join our partnership.
The evidence tells us that, alongside air pollution and pesticides, consumer products are the most important area on which to focus our attention. It also tells us to focus on children's respiratory health, impacts on children's developing brains, two increasingly common birth defects in boys, and cancer in young adults.
We agree that there is enormous complexity and uncertainty about these health risks, but it is not accurate to say, as Health Canada presented to you on May 5, that the assessment of chemicals under the chemicals management plan takes into account cumulative exposures and risks. Only for two groups of similar pesticides, and to some extent for smog-forming air pollutants, have risk assessments by regulatory agencies begun to account for the combined impact of groups of chemicals. Nowhere in the world are these assessments yet able to determine the combined impact of the low levels of varied and dissimilar pollutants and chemicals to which we are all exposed every day.
It is not difficult for pregnant women or parents to understand that a possible problem exists from exposures to these chemical complex mixtures, even if the experts cannot tell them what the impact might he on their children's health. Their reaction is entirely reasonable. They want to play it safe. They want to know where they should focus their attention, and how they can avoid these exposures. They want to apply precaution, and they want their governments to do the same.
To provide one example, during four years of educational workshops held across the country, we have asked people to consider the contents of their vacuum cleaner bag and their dryer lint. In both cases, almost everyone in those workshops was surprised to learn that, alongside dust and soil particles, hair, fabric fibres, and skin flakes, you can also find, concentrated in your house dust, low levels of chemicals that are known to be toxic, like brominated flame retardants from your furniture and computers, perfluorochemicals used as stain repellants, maybe some pesticides, phthalates, bisphenol A, short chain chlorinated paraffins, and metals like lead and mercury, among others.
We tell parents about this chemical mix for three reasons. First, it illustrates reality: We are exposed to multiple chemicals from multiple sources. Second, those sources are often from consumer products. Third, it underscores the fact that house dust is one of the most important places where children can be exposed when they are crawling on the floor or putting toys or fingers in their mouths. With this knowledge, parents can focus attention where it matters, and they can take personal actions to avoid or reduce exposures. That is just one example. We also talk about food containers and packaging, the need to follow fish advisories, safe renovations, and other issues. I don't have time for more details except to say that parents immediately want to know how they can make better choices in buying products, and how can they avoid products with toxic substances.
All we can tell them is that very limited but important information is on some labels. You've talked about the consumer chemicals and containers regulation and related efforts within the proposed globally harmonized system. This labelling provides very important information, and Canada does an excellent job in this limited area.
It's almost entirely, although not exclusively, about acute hazards, and it's not enough. To avoid products containing chemicals associated with cancer or reproductive toxicity or developmental neurotoxicity, like most of those I mentioned in the vacuum bag, we tell parents that this information should be required on the product label, but it isn't. The result is that well-intentioned people are denied important information that would enable them to lower their children's exposures. Government policy should be helping, not thwarting, these kinds of efforts.
I brought with me today an example of a label from California. It's a string of garden lights for indoor or outdoor use, and it says:
CAUTION: PROP 65 WARNING: Handling the coated electrical wires of this product exposes you to lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after use.
In very few words, in very little space on this packaging, it gives me five useful pieces of information. It gives me the warning, the law that requires it, the chemical of concern, the reasons for the concern, and good precautionary advice, to wash my hands after use. Most plastic-coated electrical wires contain between 2% and 5% lead for fire resistance. This is one of the ways that lead gets into house dust. Old paint is another.
I received the same warning label with a computer that I bought online. The company had chosen to meet the proposition 65 requirements, presumably to cover off any customers in California.
To conclude, I'll say three things. First, with limited time I've left out a lot. At CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, we have sought product recall powers in the Hazardous Products Act for nearly ten years. This and many excellent reforms are in Bill C-6, but it only goes part of the way towards creating the modernized statute described by departmental officials to you. In particular, I hope we can discuss the general prohibition, which is welcome, but we have concerns about its ability to proactively address product safety issues related to concerns about chronic toxicity.
Secondly, in the interests of time, I have focused on labelling issues, but note that for Canadians living in poverty, they need more from product safety laws than an improved right to know. They are most affected by the legacy of our past mistakes. They are using or reusing older furniture and computers, which can expose them to higher levels of now-banned flame retardants. They often live in substandard housing, which can result in greater exposure to pesticides. If the housing predates the 1970s, there are potentially excessive levels of lead in old paint. They are not likely to own good vacuum cleaners. Poor-quality housing could be more difficult to keep clean and it can have moisture problems contributing to respiratory health problems.
Poverty establishes a key determinant of health, and there is good reason to expect that Canadians living in poverty are disproportionately exposed to multiple environmental hazards, including higher levels of chemicals of concern in consumer products.
Finally, I know my colleague Lisa Gue, with the David Suzuki Foundation, will table with you several recommendations concerning improvements to Bill C-6, so to avoid duplication of our presentations, we coordinated in advance. I'll just conclude by saying that the Canadian Environmental Law Association supports the recommendations that she will be making. They are substantially similar to the recommendations tabled with you in our partnership's First Steps in Lifelong Health report.
Thank you, and I hope I didn't speak too quickly for the translators.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present our views in seven minutes and to at least get on the record for students of social history.
The Canadian Health Coalition is a non-partisan advocacy organization founded in 1979, dedicated to preserving and improving Canada's public health care system. The first goal of our coalition is to create conditions for good health. We think this should be the first objective of the Minister of Health, not to balance health with economic interests.
I'll make a couple of general observations, then some specific recommendations on Bill C-6.
I read the initial presentation of officials from Health Canada to your committee on May 5, and was impressed by members' questions from all sides. However, I must say I found the departmental responses misleading and deceptive.
Bill C-6 is consistent with the Government of Canada's policy of putting economic considerations ahead of protecting health and the environment. Everything else follows from this, including the policy of managing risk that causes preventable death instead of preventing the damage in the first place with a precautionary policy.
Bill C-6 reflects a general pattern of regulatory and legislative initiatives coming out of Health Canada. Rules are drafted by the industry itself, then these rules are not applied or enforced.
Canada's health and safety regulatory agencies have been captured by the very industries they are supposed to regulate. This regulatory capture is formalized in memoranda of understanding, where the industry actually funds the regulator and the regulator enters into a client relationship with the industry. Now, I'm assuming members of Parliament understand this, and this is what fee-for-service is all about, so their client becomes the industry instead of the public.
Regulatory scientists at Health Canada, should they have old-fashioned views of serving the public, will be fired—and have been fired. If Health Canada were putting health protection ahead of economic interests of the chemical producers, why would Dow Chemicals be pointing to Health Canada to use against Canadian municipalities in the NAFTA court challenge on cosmetic use of pesticides? If Health Canada were a world leader in protecting human health from toxic chemicals, as claimed by the associate deputy minister here on May 5, then why is Health Canada, at the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, actively working hand in hand with the food industry to block the reduction of chemical additives and contaminants in infant foods? This outrageous behaviour is well documented by the respected International Baby Food Action Network.
Health Canada has displayed negative leadership in international food and regulatory bodies by systematically blocking the introduction of the precautionary principle in international health regulations. Experience has taught me to approach any health protection legislation sponsored by Health Canada with a critical eye, based on what the department actually does, not on what it says it's doing. I encourage you to continue in this direction, as members of Parliament. Some of you have more experience than others with this departmental double-speak.
The following are specific recommendations on Bill :
First of all, the legislation needs to be precaution-based, not risk-based, and the associate deputy minister acknowledged this was a risk-based piece of legislation. That's the completely wrong starting point. It means parents don't have the right to apply precaution, because the department has already taken the risk decision for you. That means that certain chemical substances should be banned outright.
The second recommendation is to end Health Canada's secrecy about unsafe products. Bill C-6, in the definition section, enshrines into law commercial confidentiality under “confidential business information” and is such that anything that affects a company's bottom line may be kept secret. This provision must be removed from the bill if any one of you believes in the right to know. This provision is completely inconsistent with that.
The third recommendation is that we support a number of our environmental organizations, some of which are here today, in calling for an outright ban on lead, mercury, phthalates, and PBDEs.
Fourth, there needs to be a legislated mandate toward labelling in the meantime, and I understand a number of witnesses will speak to that.
Finally, we have to ensure that whistle-blowers are protected. We strongly support whistle-blower protections for individuals within companies and within Health Canada who uncover wrongdoing. Whistle-blower protection will help bring to light serious safety issues hidden by unscrupulous corporate executives, and will help ensure that scientists and other professional staff at Health Canada may raise concerns about unsafe products without fear of retaliation by the Government of Canada.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear as part of this panel today.
I will focus my comments on the potential for Bill C-6 to address the problem of chronic exposure to toxic substances found in consumer products.
The David Suzuki Foundation examined the need to update Canada's Hazardous Products Act in our 2007 report, Prescription for a Healthy Canada. This report recommended amending the act to authorize mandatory recalls of consumer products containing toxic substances that pose chronic health hazards. We also recommended, as an interim step towards phase-out, product labelling to identify synthetic chemicals and heavy metals remaining in products, which are known to cause or suspected of causing cancer, abnormal development, endocrine disruption, or damage to the nervous, immune, or reproductive systems.
On this basis, we are pleased to see Bill C-6 come before Parliament with the stated aim of modernizing Canada's product safety regime. However, in order to truly deliver on this objective, we feel the bill needs to include specific and enforceable measures that will protect against chronic health hazards in consumer products.
The interpretation section of the bill defines a danger to human health and safety to include chronic adverse effects on human health in addition to acute or immediate harm. This is a very important indication of the intended scope of this bill. Unfortunately, Bill C-6 lacks specific provisions to proactively protect against chronic health hazards in consumer goods. As drafted, the main features of the bill are reactive: enhanced inspection powers, product recall authority, increased penalties for non-compliance. While there is a general prohibition on consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety, this very general provision on its own cannot be relied on to meaningfully address chronic hazards to human health in consumer products. We feel the legislation should include explicit provisions to prohibit priority categories of toxic substances in consumer products and require product labelling to provide consumers with usable information about chronic health effects to the extent that these substances remain in products.
We therefore encourage the committee to entertain two amendments to Bill C-6.
First, include a legislative mandate for the Minister of Health to phase out the use in consumer products of substances that are carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction, and assessed as toxic to human health under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. Such an amendment should direct the minister to establish a schedule of priority chronic health hazards, drawing from International Agency for Research on Cancer classifications, California's Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are toxic to reproduction, schedule 1 of CEPA, and other authoritative assessments. This provision should include a clear timeline—we recommend implementation within two years—and allow reasonable exemptions for essential uses where safer substitutes are not available.
I would like to address the issue of detection thresholds, which was raised in earlier sessions of your study of Bill C-6. This type of amendment should aim to prohibit the intentional addition of substances that are carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction, and the compliance threshold should be established accordingly. This acknowledges that some background levels of contamination may nevertheless be present, but also takes into account that there is no safe level of many of these substances.
The second amendment we suggest complements the first, and it would require labelling to identify substances that are carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction, or health toxic under CEPA, to the extent that these substances do remain in consumer products. Again, this provision should include a clear legislative timeline and should apply to all products within the scope of this bill.
Labelling will allow consumers to make their own choices about what hazards to accept or avoid in consumer products. It will also help policy makers gather better information about chronic health risks in consumer products. We believe, as well, it will promote market innovation to substitute inherently safer alternatives in response to consumer demand.
I think most of us would agree that internationally recognized carcinogens and substances that are toxic to reproduction should not be used in consumer products if safer substitutes are available.
This is what the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act should be about, and it would be quite straightforward to add to the bill explicit provisions to this end, as I have suggested.
Strengthening the bill in this way would also help to bring Canada's product safety regime up to date with initiatives in leading jurisdictions to protect against chronic health hazards. In California, for instance, legislation dating back to 1986 requires businesses to notify the public when chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive problems are included in consumer products, and you've already seen an example of that being implemented. Last year the European Union legislated implementation timelines for hazard labelling as well, and the EU is also phasing in notification requirements and restrictions on substances of very high concern beginning this year. These measures are designed not only to protect public health and safety but also to stimulate innovation in the development and production of safer alternatives in consumer products. This is the approach that Canada should adopt in Bill as well.
Before I conclude, I'd like to touch briefly upon two other issues.
First of all, the incident reporting and product recall provisions in the bill make no requirement for public disclosure. We recommend that the legislation be amended to require the minister to notify the public of reported incidents and recall orders, including information about health hazards.
Second, we also recommend that the authority to exempt exports in paragraph 36(1)(a) be removed from the legislation. It is not morally defensible for Canada to export health and safety hazards that we prohibit or restrict domestically.
Thank you again for this opportunity to present our views. I'll be happy to respond to your questions.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the consumer health products industry on Bill C-6. My name is David Skinner, and I'm president of Consumer Health Products Canada, formerly known as NDMAC.
Consumer Health Products Canada is the national industry association representing manufacturers, marketers, and distributors of consumer health products. The association’s members, who range from small businesses to large corporations, account for the vast majority of sales in Canada’s $4.7-billion market for these products. Our members’ sales are equally proportioned between natural health products and other consumer health products, including sunscreens, allergy medicines, upset stomach remedies, and so forth. Our association has been the leading advocate for consumer health products for over 110 years.
Bill
, the Canada consumer product safety act, is, along with expected amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, a key legislative component of the government’s food and consumer safety action plan. Consumer health products are exempt from Bill C-6 by virtue of falling under the current Food and Drugs Act definition of “drug”. Nevertheless, we have identified two issues with respect to Bill C-6 that relate to consumer health products within the broader consumer safety action plan.
The first of these issues is the need to ensure that the intent to exempt those products regulated under the Food and Drugs Act is indeed carried out effectively. The second relates to the release of confidential business information to third parties, a provision found in both Bill and in the former Bill the Food and Drugs Act amendments that were introduced in the last Parliament and that died on the order paper when the 39th Parliament was dissolved.
The stated intention of the government is to exempt all therapeutic products, including consumer health products, from the provisions of this particular bill. This is to be accomplished by referencing the current definition of “drug” in the Food and Drugs Act. However, there has been much confusion around the need to specify a number of consumer health products to ensure they are adequately excluded through Schedule 1 to Bill . The minister has indicated that an amendment to clarify the scope of the act will be proposed.
A concern has been expressed that if specific subcategories of products broadly defined in Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act are not set out specifically, they may be subject to the provisions of Bill in addition to the Food and Drugs Act. It stands to reason, however, that if one subcategory of natural health product is to be specifically identified as exempt, then all subcategories of products captured by Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act must be set out in Schedule 1 to Bill C-6. Classes of product that must be recognized in addition to NHPs would include personal care products—for example, antiperspirants—and other consumer health products such as sunscreens.
A further concern that we have identified is that while Schedule 1 identifies substances that would be exempt from the provisions of the bill, it is unclear whether this exemption would extend to other elements of the products regulated under the Food and Drugs Act, specifically their packaging and labelling. Discussions with departmental officials thus far have not been able to rule out the possibility that any subcategory of product could wind up being subject to both pieces of legislation in this way. In addition to the complexities and the unwarranted burden of being subject to two pieces of legislation, this possibly also creates the potential for situations in which the two regimes could come into conflict with each other.
Regulations and guidance documents under the Food and Drugs Act set out many specific requirements for the packaging of consumer health products, including child-resistant packaging, tamper-evident packaging, packaging material specifications, dose delivery mechanisms—for example, metered inhalers—and, of course, labelling.
We recognize that an attempt to list all possible classes of product could fail to cover all potentially relevant products. Since new classes of products arise from time to time under the Food and Drugs Act—for example, nutraceuticals—the list could be out of date rather quickly. To ensure that Bill clearly exempts products regulated under the Food and Drugs Act and to provide for flexibility so that every time a new class is added under the Food and Drugs Act there is no need for consequential amendments to Bill C-6, we recommend that schedule 1 be amended to delete articles 2 to 5 and replace them with a broad exemption for all products regulated within the scope of the Food and Drugs Act.
Our second key concern relates to the confidential business information provisions. The consumer health products industry understands the need, in rare emergency circumstances, for Health Canada to be able to release confidential business information to foreign regulatory authorities and other third parties to mitigate against potential serious and imminent public health risks. However, given the extent of vital proprietary information shared with Health Canada, industry believes that Health Canada must also notify the proprietor of the confidential information at the time such information is disclosed. Since consent to disclose is not required in the circumstances laid out in the act, timely notification would not in any way impact the government's ability to act or to act in a timely manner.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our industry's perspective on this important legislative proposal. My colleague and I look forward to answering questions you may have.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks very much to our witness for taking the time to come here today.
First of all, Ms. Cooper and Ms. Gue, I would like to tell you that several of the proposals you made are already in effect in Quebec, in the Environmental Quality Act and the Pesticides Act. So, we can see that Quebec is already moving towards much more fair and equitable legislation. We encourage the federal government to follow the path that Quebec has already chosen. I will come back to that a little later.
Mr. Skinner, you told us something interesting just now about the publication of confidential information. This is extremely important, I feel, because we have to make sure that consumers are protected. That is vital, but there also must be a kind of guideline so that companies are not unfairly penalized. I feel that we need to achieve a balance there.
You are not alone in making that proposal to us. Jeff Hurst, the president of the Canadian Toy Association, wanted some amendments too. For example, before the department decides to publish confidential documents unilaterally, it should at least take the time to communicate with a company so that the company has time to get itself organized, to determine the damage, to try to come to an arrangement, or especially to order a voluntary recall, or perhaps to decide on a course of action with the department.
Ms. Reed, from Option consommateurs, also recognized that companies must not be penalized. She mentioned something extremely interesting in Europe, where they have a website on which manufacturers—she was talking about toys, but she explained that it could apply to many other areas—could post information about the composition of their toys without getting into confidential information. It is done without necessarily listing the companies they do business with, or whatever. But it would be good to have a list of the components that go into the manufacture of toys. Mr. Hurst, from the Canadian Toy Association, seemed receptive to that.
I am going to ask you another question at the same time. Could you tell me if you were consulted about Bill ? Also, how could we ask the department to make sure that its position is fair and equitable for all, and to examine the idea of a web site with Option consommateurs?
:
Thank you for your question, Mr. Dufour.
Allow me to answer in English.
[English]
The question of the release of confidential business information is a key one for an industry that is proprietary information-based, such as the consumer health products industry.
We are in a bit of an awkward spot before this committee, however, because we don't anticipate that the provisions contained in this bill will apply to our industry. We expect that the discussion will be unique to health products, once the anticipated amendments to the Food and Drugs Act come along.
Certainly we recognize that there is a public health need at times that will require proprietary information to be released; we don't contest that. We also understand that there will not be a requirement for consent from industry when that information, as an issue of public safety, needs to be released. However, we have a broader concern around the issue of notification, so that manufacturers are in a position to at least deal with the consequences of their information going into, at some level or other, the public domain. It may require business decisions that are very important, when proprietary information is one of the key assets that these companies hold.
In the broader sense of your questions, I expect that the dialogue, when we get to the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, will be a very detailed one. But in terms of the issues around they could be different. I think the health products industry has some unique dimensions to it, around intellectual property protection and so forth, that make up how products are approved so that Health Canada is in the possession of key proprietary information, which may not be the case with other consumer products.
In that sense, I'm afraid there are limits to the input we can offer the committee.
:
Tick or blow up? Gotcha.
I want to know what's in it. This is number 3 plastic, so it's phthalate-softened PVC plastic. It's a drink container. It was given out by the thousands at the fall fair in Lindsay, Ontario, last fall.
I have another one. This example is given out to children as a drink container for reuse. Again it's phthalate-softened PVC plastic. In my opinion, it would be very efficient to say “don't use phthalate-softened plastic for food and drink containers”, rather than, one product at a time, say “we'll have to assess and we'll get back to you; it will take us two or three years to do a regulation”. That's the process we have.
I'm straying. I shouldn't have done that. You asked about imports.
It's great that we're increasing the number of inspectors; we needed to do that. But how is something like this going to get caught? That's the concern I have.
I'm going to find out whether its red colour comes from lead. I'll get back to you on that. I know it has phthalates in it.
I don't want to be the heavy mom who, when the kids bring this stuff back, may look at the bottom of it and say don't use that. I don't want this sort of thing to be happening in the first place, and I think it happens all too easily.
This is just one example. It's cheap, imported, junky stuff that I think too easily gets through the kinds of screens, even with more inspectors, that, if we had more efficient ways of saying “just don't use that in food and drink containers”—in the same way that we are saying “don't use bisphenol A in any food and drink containers”, not just the baby bottle thing, because we have enough evidence to say don't do that....
I don't know whether I'm being clear there, but I'm trying to get at the notion of being more efficient and just saying categorically, in certain ways, especially when it's food and drink and it's directed to kids, “don't use it”—categories, rather than one product at a time, one substance at a time. It gets at that notion of the volume of things that are coming in, in so many ways—usually as imports.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm accompanied by Ethel Archard, who also retired from the Canada Safety Council. So you can tell what the council does with their old employees: they keep them busy. Anyway, thank you again for having us.
Globalization and new technologies have led to an influx of products into the Canadian market. The Hazardous Products Act urgently needs to be amended to meet the challenges of the 21st century. But that does not mean we need a brand-new law. The Canada Safety Council recommends that the government build upon the existing act by amending it to address current and future needs. That legislation has been in place for over 40 years, and has served Canadians extremely well--that is, as long as it has been properly resourced and promoted.
In the interest of public health and safety, there is absolutely no need to start from scratch with a new law that may not be fully implemented for many years. The approach that should be taken is to amend the existing Hazardous Products Act. Some of the perceived inadequacies in the act have resulted from the lack of proper enforcement. To be effective, laws must be enforced. This requires the government's commitment to provide resources: financial, human, and otherwise. Effective regulatory oversight is absolutely critical to public safety. I would like to start by noting that when it comes to consumer product safety, imported products are the major offenders.
In early 2007, tainted pet food from China killed thousands of dogs and cats in North America. Later that year, the U.S. recalled 34 million toys and other products made in China due to lead paint and small powerful magnets that children could easily swallow. Based on the U.S. recall, there would have been over three million of the made-in-China products in Canada. Most are likely still in use. Some will find their way into attics and garage sales, and eventually all will end up in landfill sites, at a disastrous cost to our environment. It would make sense to assume that these incidents would have prompted the Canadian government to take action. Obviously, our existing hazardous product laws needed to be enforced with a focus on imports from China. But that is not what happened.
In October 2008, The Toronto Star published an investigative report on toxic toys being sold in the greater Toronto area. The Toronto Star shopped at 18 stores, large and small, and found high levels of lead in one of every four products purchased. Some of the products were even labelled lead-free. One necklace clasp tested at 150 times above the limit. The investigation in The Toronto Star found that there are only 46 inspectors monitoring stores for all of Canada. Of the 13 in Ontario, 11 are in Toronto and two are left to cover the rest of the province.
An importer who travels to Asia four times a year told The Toronto Star that he never sees officials spot-checking any imports whatsoever. An investigative reporter found that out. Truly it is a travesty that the government sees fit to have so few inspectors to protect Canadians from danger from hazardous goods. At that time, the then Minister of Health, Tony Clement, promised more would be hired. It would be interesting to see how many more inspectors there are today than there were in October 2008.
In November 2006 Auditor General Sheila Fraser raised concerns that Canada was failing due to the lack of enforcement to protect Canadians from dangerous products. She questioned whether there was enough funding for enforcement and even whether the government had given it any thought whatsoever. I would like to point out that not one Canadian manufacturer was implicated in dangerous products that hit the Canadian marketplace over the last while. By imposing strict new requirements, Bill may put Canadian manufacturers at a disadvantage when trying to compete with imports.
The import of dangerous products on a large scale with impunity and over such a long period of time indicates a serious problem with the enforcement of existing law. Passing a new law will not solve this problem. Amendments to existing legislation occur on a regular basis. For example, the House of Commons passed changes to the Criminal Code of Canada in April 2008 to combat cruelty to animals. The proposed anti-gang legislation will be made, if it does occur, through amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, not a brand-new Criminal Code.
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is continually updated through amendments. Bill C-9, an act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act of 1992, was introduced on February 16 of this year. It went through the House of Commons and the Senate and received royal assent on May 14, a couple of weeks ago.
A new law can have unintended negative consequences. The most obvious are the time and resources required. What will happen to product safety during this transition period? Lawyers and experts have already expressed concerns that companies will contest the very high fines in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Such challenges would slow the implementation of long-overdue measures to protect Canadians.
The bottom line is, who is responsible for product safety? Retailers cannot test everything they sell; they must rely on the supplier and ultimately the Canadian government to assure the safety of products entering and being sold in this country.
Product recalls make the consumer responsible to return unsafe products, and they do not remove all the offending products from the marketplace. For the kinds of hazardous products covered in the legislation, most consumers are indifferent to recalls—with the possible exception of high-priced items. Imposing new requirements on Canadian manufacturers will not prevent unsafe imported toys from being sold in this country.
The Hazardous Products Act needs to be updated, but a brand-new law is not needed. What is needed is the amendment of the existing act and a serious commitment to promotion and enforcement.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you very much, and thanks for the opportunity to be here today.
I must stress at the outset that I'm not a safety expert, nor do I know the details of all the standards, practices, and regulations of the many thousands of businesses my organization represents. But what I can tell you is how a small-business owner may think and react to Bill C-6.
Let me also state at this time that CFIB and our members support the underlying intent of this bill and that consumer safety is of the utmost importance. We believe that governments, industry, consumers all have a role to play to ensure that products purchased by Canadians are safe for them and their families. I also want to point out that CFIB is a member of the Consumer Product Safety Coalition, which of course is going to be here today, and my colleagues next to me will provide you with some recommendations from that group.
You should have in front of you a document from us. You should have a slide deck, which I'm going to walk you through; a copy of a letter we sent to the minister a few months back on this issue; as well as a member profile of CFIB.
Some of you may know that CFIB is a not-for-profit organization that represents the interests of small and medium-sized companies across Canada. We have over 105,000 privately owned and operated Canadian companies as members who collectively employ approximately one and a quarter million Canadians. Our members represent all sectors of the economy, and they are located in all regions of the country.
You should also have a copy in front of you of CFIB's member profile. It's really there to show you how our members are distributed across the country and how many of them are going to be directly affected by this legislation. For example, we have over 30,000 retailers, 8,000 wholesalers, and more than 13,000 manufacturing firms, among others, who may be impacted by this bill.
Most people know this fundamentally, but it's so important to understand the importance of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. Ninety-eight percent of businesses in Canada have fewer than 50 employees. They employ 60% of working Canadians, and they are Canada's primary job creators, especially during these more difficult economic times. These same businesses produce almost half of Canada's economic output today. So it's imperative that the government always be mindful of the impacts of new policies, regulations, or legislation on this group.
CFIB is constantly tracking the issues of highest priority for Canada's small and medium-sized businesses, and the next chart shows the results from the most recent data collected in March of 2009 based on more than 10,000 responses. In this you can see that almost two-thirds cited government regulation and paper burden as an issue of high priority. This is not surprising when you realize that complying with government regulations from all levels of government is costing Canadian businesses approximately $33 billion a year.
But even more important than the total amount spent complying is the fact that the smaller the business, the higher the cost for the business to comply, and this is illustrated on slide 5. This is from a report CFIB did back in 2005, and this data has actually been validated by the OECD as well. It is higher for smaller companies partly because relatively speaking they often have to invest more time and energy to figure out all the rules, as they usually have no staff to do this for them, and partly because many regulations are put together with big business in mind and they do not always factor in whether the same rules are workable for smaller companies.
So part of my intent here today really is to highlight the higher cost borne by smaller companies and to ask that you ensure that this legislation be workable for smaller companies because they make up such a significant part of Canada's economy.
When it comes to Bill C-6, we do worry about the additional burden and complexity this will bring to small and medium-sized companies. This is especially concerning to us after the government's success in reducing paper burden by 22% across 13 departments earlier this year. This exercise actually included Health Canada, which had recorded the highest number of obligations and requirements for businesses among those 13 departments. So we don't want to lose this momentum that's been created by this exercise, and we hope this new legislation and its associated regulations and policies will follow the paper burden reduction principles, which were that any policy has to be designed to balance business needs with the need to protect the health and safety of Canadians.
One way to do this more effectively, though, is to require some measurement that will help policy-makers and legislators understand whether the legislation is working as intended or if it's causing unintended consequences. Requiring ongoing measurement and public reporting of those measurements keeps a check and balance of the system, and allows for adjustments as needed along the way.
How else can governments help small businesses to comply? The next slide shows some ideas from SMEs themselves. Clearly communicating new regulations, providing examples of compliance, and improving government customer service are just some of the practical ways SMEs have identified will help them to better comply. SMEs are small and medium-sized enterprises. CFIB has already met with Health Canada several times to provide this kind of feedback, and we have agreed to work with them on implementation as this is when SMEs will experience the greatest impact.
So CFIB has some very general concerns with the legislation. We also have some very specific concerns we'd like to see addressed, and my colleagues in the coalition will touch on these in more detail.
First, we believe that incident reporting and documentation preparation timelines are too short, and it is not very clear when the two-day requirement to report kicks in. This needs to be clarified, as smaller companies may end up sending far too much or not enough information to Health Canada, if this is not better defined.
It's also important to remember that many if not most small companies will not likely have the capacity to carry out an investigation of a consumer complaint or conduct a risk assessment. What would be expected of these types of businesses in such circumstances must be made clear.
Secondly, there needs to be some time limit as to how long a business is required to keep records. Most other departments, including the Canada Revenue Agency, put a limit on how long a business needs to keep records. We would suggest five years.
There also needs to be clarity on what is meant by “prescribed documents”. We suggest that examples be provided to smaller companies so that they better understand what it means. We would also suggest that any such documents be limited to documents already in the possession of a business and not require new forms to be filled out every time a product is produced, imported, or sold.
We also have concerns that the legislation provides inspectors with very broad powers to conduct inspections and impose seizures, stop orders, and recalls. These broad powers must be balanced with some procedural safeguards, so that inspectors are accountable for their actions as well--for example, requiring them to provide advance notification of a seizure or a stop order; providing an opportunity for a business to respond; time limits for a stop order; or a process for recovery of seized items.
In addition, given the magnitude of the mandatory recall order and its possible implications for a company, only the minister should have the authority to issue mandatory recall orders, as is already the case with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and this should only be after the business has been given an opportunity to voluntarily recall the product.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of protecting the confidentiality of business information when sharing this information with other countries. We recognize that there may be a need for Health Canada to quickly share information when there is an imminent threat; however, businesses should be given advance notice that their business information is to be shared, and an opportunity to validate and correct that information. This information should also be restricted only to information necessary to protect the health and safety of Canadians.
In conclusion, CFIB supports the underlying objective of this bill to protect Canadian consumers and products that may pose a danger to their safety; however, we all know that the devil is in the details, so it will be imperative for Health Canada to effectively implement and clearly communicate what is required.
I ask that when you're going through the details of this bill you put on the hat of a small-business owner simply trying to run a business in this more difficult economy, attempting to comply with all the various rules and requirements that are out there from all levels of government. Think about how the bill will be workable for them, so that they can be more effective in helping to protect consumers.
Thank you for the opportunity to present.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
I am the spokesperson for the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Coalition. I also have a full-time job as the president and general manager of the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating.
Consumer safety is a paramount goal for members of the coalition, and we appreciate this opportunity to speak to the committee on Bill C-6. Joining me is Keith Mussar of the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. He has a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Waterloo, and he will assist me in answering members' questions.
This coalition is composed of 13 major national business associations representing total annual sales in the $600-billion range. They are engaged in every aspect of the process that results in products being made available to Canadian consumers. Coalition member companies include domestic manufacturers, importers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers. Committee members will appreciate that the interests of our coalition members in the provisions of Bill C-6 are acute and all-encompassing. Member companies are located in all parts of Canada. Their ability to generate positive economic activity at the local level is widespread, and a significant percentage of these companies are small and medium-sized enterprises.
Coalition members are responsible corporate citizens and are vitally concerned about product safety. Member companies have increased their investment in product safety throughout the product development and certification process, and actively participate in our national infrastructure system of codes and standards that are health- and safety-based and governed by the Standards Council of Canada.
The coalition supports the government's initiative to update Canada's consumer product safety law. We welcome this continued meaningful opportunity to work with the government and Health Canada to refine Bill C-6. We firmly believe in an industry-government partnership.
There are five areas in which the coalition believes Bill C-6 could be improved: one, reporting of safety related incidents; two, preservation of confidential business information; three, mandatory recall orders; four, orders for stop-sale, testing studies, and information compilation; and five, alignment of international safety standards and procedures.
As to incident reporting obligations, we recognize that genuine safety issues must be reported to the government in a timely manner. At the same time, our members receive and carefully analyze thousands of reports from consumers each year, the vast majority of which do not raise genuine product safety issues. It is important to ensure that the government is promptly notified of safety issues—without creating impossible deadlines and causing industry to flood the government with non-useful reports from consumers around the world. We have discussed this concern with Health Canada and they recognize this need for balance. However, the coalition believes that Bill C-6 itself should provide clearer guidance to better inform Health Canada's implementation of Bill C-6. Specifically, reports of incidents should not be required until there has been an opportunity to determine their validity and relevance to the existence of a possible defect, unreasonable condition, or substantial hazard.
As to preserving confidential business information, Health Canada absolutely must have the power to disclose information as necessary to protect consumers from danger. At the same time, publication of unsubstantiated consumer reports that have not been investigated properly may give rise to false alarms. This could compromise the credibility of Health Canada and create unnecessary anxiety or even panic among consumers. It would also seriously damage responsible companies that have spent years building their reputation. We urge that Bill C-6 be amended to make clearer the scope of commercial information the minister could disclose and to require the government to notify a company and receive its response, if possible, before its company-specific and confidential information is released.
Clause 30 gives inspectors broad authority to issue mandatory recall orders. Because of the gravity and serious implications of this remedy, only the minister should have the authority to issue mandatory recall orders. Moreover, a company should be given every opportunity to recall a product voluntarily. It should be notified and given an opportunity to respond before the minister issues a mandatory recall order. Finally, if a mandatory recall order is issued, there should be an opportunity for review.
Several clauses of the bill call for inspections, testing, and, more important, stop-sale and import orders to be issued without any attempt to notify and receive responses from affected businesses. Certainly, the coalition and any legitimate businesses believe that, if no responsible party can be identified in a timely manner, then the government should have these powers to act in the case of an imminent danger. But in many cases, there is sufficient time for prior notice and some type of response from the affected party. Therefore, a measure of reasonableness and an opportunity for legitimate businesses to respond and work with the government is required.
As to the alignment of international safety standards, coalition members operate in a global marketplace, and an alignment with international safety standards and procedures—which often address the same issues—would benefit regulators, industry, and Canadians in the following manner: it would eliminate the need to duplicate testing, where the tests are only slightly different; it would facilitate trade and reduce costs to consumers; and it would enable closer cooperation and enforcement by Health Canada and its counterparts around the world.
Indeed, increased alignment of international standards is an explicit goal of Health Canada. While there are many different voluntary and mandatory safety standards for consumer products, the coalition and its members urge Canada to take advantage of the experience reflected in standards already adopted by other countries, such as those established by the respected International Organization for Standardization.
Canada, of course, must be free to adopt its own, different standards to the extent necessary to protect all Canadians.
Madam Chair, in summary, the coalition applauds these efforts and supports the principles in Bill C-6. We want to work with the government to continue to refine and improve the bill in three principal areas.
First, we request clarification of reporting obligations. We want to ensure that Health Canada obtains the information it needs to protect consumers while not creating a crippling volume of consumer reports that do not reflect a real, actionable safety issue.
Second, we request that Bill C-6 ensure that confidential business information is released publicly only to the extent necessary to address a genuine, validated safety risk, and that advance notice be provided to the affected businesses.
Finally, we believe that Canadian consumers and companies, as well as the government, would benefit greatly from increased alignment of international safety standards and procedures.
The coalition has submitted a detailed report, including recommendations on the specific clauses of the bill I have referred to in my remarks, and I understand these have been forwarded to the members serving on the committee.
On behalf of our members, I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and the other members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak here today on a matter that is vitally important to all Canadians, the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Coalition, and its member companies.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Consumers' Association of Canada is a 62-year-old, independent, not-for-profit, volunteer-based organization, with a national office in Ottawa, and provincial and territorial representatives. Our mandate is to inform and educate consumers on marketplace issues, to advocate for consumers with government and industry, and to work with government and industry to solve marketplace problems in beneficial ways.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill . We are pleased to see the introduction of this important piece of consumer legislation, after more than two decades of relative inattention by all levels of government, and we urge you to help hasten its passage.
The current legislation came into being almost 40 years ago during a period when consumer activism reached its peak. It was then that people began to realize that there was a huge imbalance in the marketplace—consumers were entering into transactions with increasingly sophisticated business operators. At that time, legislation was simply playing catch-up with all of the economic, financial, and demographic developments that had occurred since the end of World War II.
In the interval, Canada has seen changes that are just as dramatic, if not more so. We have become a nation of consumers made up of many ethnic backgrounds, living in various economic circumstances and carrying various levels of debt. Where we used to eat mostly locally produced food and buy products that may have been manufactured by our neighbours, we now purchase a huge range of goods of increased complexity, the majority of which come from outside the country. Even many of our services are outsourced. The balance has again tilted dramatically so that Canadian consumers are at a disadvantage in the marketplace. With the proliferation of new products, most Canadians feel that our health and safety has been compromised. This impression has been reinforced by items such as tainted toothpaste, lead paint in toys, tainted seafood, salmonella, and listeriosis outbreaks.
This leads me to two of the most significant provisions in Bill C-6. One is the change from the proscriptive regime of the Hazardous Products Act, in which only listed or designated products were covered, to a results-based regime, which prohibits the supply to consumers of products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety. The results-based regime gives us the flexibility to meet changing market conditions and to react immediately when a threat is identified, rather than having to go through a lengthy regulatory process.
The second provision flows from the first. In the past, when a hazardous product was identified, the minister could do nothing more than, in effect, go cap in hand and ask the supplier to recall the offending item. If the supplier did not voluntarily do so, the minister was powerless to force the action. Thus many products that should not have been offered for sale remained on retailers' shelves. Now the government will be able to remove and recall offending products, without relying on the good conscience of the supplier, and will even be able to cause action to be taken at the supplier's expense, should the response be inadequate or untimely.
This bill also provides for fines and penalties to be brought to bear for non-compliance. This is something that was sorely missing in all previous legislation and is needed to encourage appropriate behaviour. Additionally, the establishment of a mechanism for mandatory reporting of adverse events and incidents will help establish an early-warning system, identifying problems much sooner in their sale cycle.
The Consumers' Association recognizes that there will be a learning process on the part of all participants, and the sooner we get started the better. Given the current economic downturn, sales of consumer goods have declined somewhat. While some may argue that this reduces the urgency for passage of the bill, it is feared that this climate may encourage some suppliers to cut corners in order to retain profitability.
With the passage of Bill C-6, the Canadian government will have taken a big step towards improving consumer protection. Once this has been done, the Consumers' Association of Canada suggests that the government, through this and other appropriate committees, give consideration to raising the status of Canadian consumers and their marketplace needs. Nowhere in Canada, either provincially or federally, is there a cabinet-level department devoted solely to consumer protection. Where there is an agency with this responsibility, it is always combined with some other function, which is often inappropriate. When Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada was broken up many years ago, many of its functions were hived off to other departments, with a rump group known as the Office of Consumer Affairs establishing itself in Industry Canada. Perhaps most inappropriately, food safety came under the aegis of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which reports through the Minister of Agriculture, who is also responsible for promoting the sale of foodstuffs.
That was an aside to make us think about something for the future. But once again, I urge the committee to help effect early passage of Bill C-6 and bring Canadian consumer protection into the 21st century.
I tried to be very brief and highlight some of our main considerations. Thank you for listening. I'll be pleased to try to answer your questions.
:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present today.
I have provided a copy of my comments. I apologize to you that they are not also available in French, but I should let you know that I found out yesterday about noon that I would be here this afternoon.
I appreciate the amount of work you've been involved in with regard to this very important legislation and have taken the time to review the comments of people who have come before you.
By way of background, the United Steelworkers is an international union, with members across Canada and the United States. In Canada our union is very diverse, with members in almost every sector of the economy.
As our name implies, we have a long history in mining, steelmaking, metalworking, and manufacturing. From that history, we have a lot of experience with toxic chemicals and the diseases they cause. We were involved in bringing WHMIS, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, into Canada in the 1980s, and to this day we are still dealing with the impacts of chemical exposures on our members and their communities. Recent occupational disease clinics in Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury attracted hundreds of people. We are supporters of the recent Ontario Toxic Chemicals Reduction Act, currently in third reading, as well as community right to know at the municipal level.
The toxicity of many of the chemicals we are concerned about in the environment and consumer products today was originally demonstrated in the lives of workers and the damage it did to their health. Many of the strategies that speak of controlling exposures, limiting risk instead of advising hazards, and personal protection responsibility were tried and failed in the occupational setting. Years ago we were told there were safe limits of exposures to most chemicals. Since then exposure limits have become lower and lower, as studies continue to show there is no safe level of exposure to toxic chemicals, especially if the exposure is repeated and over a lifetime.
We need to talk about the total burden of chemicals in our bodies from all sources, including the environment. This government's and the Ontario government's investment in green chemistry innovation at Queen's University in Kingston is recognition that we have to find a better way to produce the chemicals we need.
Our membership was deeply moved in 2007 when a wave of toxic toys hit Canada, many of which were contaminated by lead. After a decade of fighting in North America to have lead removed from paints and gasoline, after decades of controlling the exposure in smelters, mills, and other industries, something is wrong when the system allows lead to be used in consumer products.
Some of us still remember that it was the impact of our children originally being exposed to lead in communities in Canada in the 1960s that gave impetus to the regular reform that reduced those exposures and gave us the legislation we're reviewing now.
It did not seem right to us that such a well-known hazard should be allowed back into Canada by trade. Our activists became involved in a Get the Lead Out campaign across Canada and the U.S., adding our voice to others who felt that something had to be done. Product safety must not be left to voluntary systems and the luck of the draw.
I might say in parenthesis here that we were quite astounded at the response we got from our members. We have a long history and involvement in occupational health and safety and activists who are trained to deal with those issues, but it wasn't those activists who responded to the problem of toxic toys. It was the average member, the member who had children, particularly women, who were at the forefront of making this an issue for our organization and making it a key point in a campaign that led us to distributing information and becoming part of what was originally the movement toward Bill and Bill , and now Bill .
We are also encouraged to be here by our environmental partner, Environmental Defence. Aaron Freeman, the research director, has already addressed you. Our alliance with Environmental Defence focuses on the impacts of toxic chemicals and climate change. Environmental Defence's “Toxic Nation” campaign has shown that the challenge we face is much bigger than we think. It confirms the experiences of workers that the chemicals are in our bodies now. We are here to support their efforts and their position--and of many of the other environmental groups that I note have already spoken to you--that we need to reduce exposures through consumer products.
To quote the title of the book that Environmental Defence's chair and executive director recently co-authored, we must prevent Death by Rubber Duck,, a book that I highly recommend to each of you if you have not had a chance to review it.
To the point of our remarks regarding Bill C-6, like many others who have appeared before you, and most of the people here this evening, we support the goal and objectives of the bill. It is important that there be a mandatory reporting system for toxins and hazards in consumer products and a clear system for enforcement. While the bill has a number of these important features, it needs to be strengthened in order to achieve its goals as described in the preamble.
In particular, we support amendments suggested by Environmental Defence. Strengthening the bill now will benefit us all in the long run. The bill provides strong language regarding prohibition, but is weak in identifying the problems proactively and sets the bar for action too high.
The bill needs a proactive system of inspection and verification. In this regard, I note the previous evidence that was given by Mr. Glover on behalf of the government in regard to this bill. He in fact spoke about the bill having a proactive nature to it. I must confess to being surprised that he characterized it that way, because it seems to me the system, with all the improvements proposed, is still fundamentally reactive. Until someone discovers a problem--inadvertently, if something has happened, or if a group of doctors notice it in their patients--nothing is done. There is no system through which to go and get proactive information. And that, particularly when you're dealing with imports, which, as was previously noted, are a key part of this problem, needs to be part of the system.
What is needed is an administrative system to ensure that manufacturers and importers--and I emphasize them in particular--are testing their supply chain to make sure toxic chemicals are not getting into the products. The government needs a system of independent verification through random reviews. A testing protocol is required to protect consumers and to raise the bar for company testing. Without that protection, the legislation is at risk of encouraging "Don't ask, don't tell".
We strongly believe that there needs to be the policing function as outlined in the act. In addition, however, we believe there needs to be an administrative review program to ensure that the highest levels of performance and protection are being followed.
:
Gosh. Where do I start?
Let me start by just saying that I think we run into some problems in this country when we take this kind of hands-off approach. I think if you look at the listeriosis crisis right now and you ask Maple Leaf what they would like to see happen, they would say that they want tough government regulations with proper inspection staff and that they want to make sure that there is that independent oversight for all of their products.
That's all we're asking for with this bill. We're trying to make this bill truly precautionary. It starts off in the preamble saying do no harm. Other than the words “do no harm”, there is nothing in this bill that actually requires that products put on the market be safe beyond a reasonable doubt. We're trying to get there. How do you do that? You do that by having more than simply tough penalties with recalls, because by then the products have already caused death or illness or serious injury. Therefore, you have to turn to what the options are. The options are testing the products coming into this country, having spot audits, having surprise inspections, and having adequate inspection staff. When there are products that have been identified as containing serious carcinogens and causing problems to human health, such as lead or phthalates, you do something about it, like banning them. If you don't have that definitive evidence and you don't have a government that's willing to ban them, then you label them.
I would suggest to all of you that if you're looking at this as a parent and as a consumer, you're going to want to go into a store with the knowledge you've acquired and make a decision based on what is best for the health and well-being of your children. That's all we're asking for with this bill. Does anybody here disagree with testing of products coming into this country? Does anybody disagree with increasing inspection staff so we can do some on-spot audits and check for not the 85% of the retailers who might be doing good business with good ethics but those who don't? You know that there are those who don't do the best they can and who put unethical products on the market. That's why we have bills like this.
Does anybody here disagree with banning products that have been proven to be carcinogenic and dangerous when they build up over a period of time, like lead and phthalates and mercury? Does anybody here think that we shouldn't ensure in this bill that there be something that requires those products that are hot to be banned? Finally, if they're not and if we don't have the definitive science, does anybody disagree that we should have some form of labeling so that you as parents can help make a wise decision for the well-being of your children?