Bill C-36 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act
An Act respecting the safety of consumer products
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 9, 2010
- Debated in principleOct. 7, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 29, 2010
- Passed the second chamberDec. 12, 2010
- Became lawDec. 14, 2010
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Yonah MartinSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Leona Aglukkaqintroduces and promotes bill as essential modernization of outdated law
- Carolyn Bennettexplicitly states support after government addressed stakeholder concerns
- Senator DaySenate · SenatorBelieves the bill has been improved substantially and plans to support second reading in principle.
- Senator BanksSenate · SenatorConcurs with Senator Day and plans to vote for the bill at second reading.
- Megan Lesliewelcomes bill moving forward as needed consumer protection update
- Harold Albrechtdefends bill against misinformation and highlights positive safety elements
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 9 June 2010, the Minister of Health introduced Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products (Canada Consumer Product Safety Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. This bill is designed to repeal and replace Part I of the Hazardous Products Act, creating a new system to regulate consumer products that pose, or might reasonably be expected to pose, a danger to human health and safety. Bill C-6: • prohibits the sale, manufacture, import and advertisement of certain listed products and provides for testing and evaluation of consumer products; • makes it mandatory for manufacturers, importers, and sellers of consumer products to report dangerous incidents associated with these products to the Minister of Health; • obliges manufacturers, importers and sellers of consumer products to report product or labelling defects that result, or might reasonably be expected to result, in death or serious adverse effects on health, including serious injury, to the Minister of Health; • requires manufacturers, importers and sellers of consumer products to report recalls of consumer products initiated by governments and government institutions in Canada or else…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
What the Senate tried to change
- otherSenators Furey and BanksProposed amendments at third reading of previous bill that were passed and incorporated into C-36.Adopted · Nov. 18, 2010 · Senate record
- technicalSenator GovernmentTechnical amendments in committee in the other place to address problems raised previously.Adopted · Nov. 18, 2010 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
56% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (11,890 words introduced, 11,716 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with mostly the same prohibitions, reporting duties and inspection powers but several technical fixes and added detail on documents. Inspector designation reference and retailer record-keeping language were updated between introduction and royal assent.
- Changed the subsection reference for who may designate an inspector.
Before: “"inspector" means an individual designated as an inspector under subsection 19(1).”
After: “"inspector" means an individual designated as an inspector under subsection 19(2).”
- Expanded the required contents of retailer documents on product sources and sales periods.
Before: “(i) in the case of a retailer, the name and address of the person from whom they obtained the pro”
After: “(i) in the case of a retailer, the name and address of the person from whom they obtained the product and the location where and the period during which they sold the product, and (ii) in the case of any other person, the name and address of the person from whom the”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act mixes concrete definitions, fixed penalties and numbered procedures with repeated subjective tests and open-ended ministerial powers. Much of what is allowed or forbidden turns on phrases such as 'reasonable grounds' and 'the Minister considers necessary'.
Open to argument
“the Minister considers necessary to verify compliance or prevent non-compliance”
Leaves the scope of required tests or information to the Minister's subjective judgment rather than an objective standard.“believes on reasonable grounds that there is a contravention”
Uses a discretionary belief standard that invites argument over what facts meet the threshold.“may reasonably be expected to result in an individual's death or in serious adverse effects”
Relies on a predictive and evaluative test open to differing interpretations of likelihood and seriousness.“any measure that the Minister considers necessary to remedy a non-compliance”
Grants broad remedial discretion without statutory limits on the type or extent of measures.
Clear-cut
“on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $5,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or to both”
States exact maximum fines and terms of imprisonment.“If an offence under this Act is committed or continued on more than one day, it constitutes a separate offence for each day”
Provides an objective, mechanical rule for counting offences.
Discretion. Extensive authority is left to the Minister to decide what information is needed, when to disclose personal information, what measures remedy non-compliance, and whether to seek injunctions or seize goods.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'reasonable grounds', 'may reasonably be expected' and similar phrases could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether the Minister's subjective assessments of risk, necessity or reasonable grounds were actually met on the facts.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
Health Canada evaluations of the Consumer Product Safety Program (which administers the CCPSA) from 2013 and 2022 found progress in implementation, enhanced surveillance, high voluntary industry compliance, and contributions to consumer awareness and safer products, though with recommendations for improvements in e-commerce and transparency. A 2016 Auditor General report noted advancements since the Act's 2011 coming into force but identified persistent gaps in risk detection, performance measurement, and full demonstration of effectiveness in addressing chemical hazards.
- Evaluation of the Consumer Product Safety Program (Health Canada, 2022)evaluationCPSP activities supported progress toward CCPSA goals of improved awareness, industry compliance, and safer products, with enhanced surveillance capacity and efficient delivery, though e-commerce challenges remain.
- Evaluation of the Consumer Products Activities (Health Canada, 2013)evaluationSignificant progress in establishing and implementing the CCPSA with new powers, industry awareness raised, and centralized risk assessment, despite some ongoing non-compliance in specific regulations.
- Report 3—Chemicals in Consumer Products and Cosmetics (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2016)auditHealth Canada made progress developing policies post-CCPSA but information gaps limited risk detection and assessment; the program could not fully demonstrate achievement of objectives or track performance on reducing incidents.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.