MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W227614572

Canada's New Consumer Product Legislation: A Shield or a Sword?

2011· article· en· W227614572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter J. Pliszka, Richard D. Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueDefense Counsel Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct liabilityConsumer protectionProduct (mathematics)LawBusinessLegislationCommissionPlaintiffGovernment (linguistics)ParliamentLiabilityCommercePoliticsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article originally appeared in the January 2011 Product Liability Committee Newsletter. Manufacturers, importers and retailers selling consumer products in Canada will soon experience a flurry of regulatory change. On December 15, 2010, the Parliament of Canada gave royal assent to Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer to be known as the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA). CCPSA is awaiting proclamation in force. Once CCPSA is proclaimed in force, it will transform Health Canada into a weighty regulator of the consumer product supply chain, with powers akin to those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in the U.S. The stated goal of CCPSA is to strengthen and standardize the consumer product safety regime in Canada, which Health Canada--Canada's federal health authority---expects to achieve through: * a power to order recalls of consumer products * increased and onerous reporting responsibilities for the consumer products industry * a prosecution and penalty regime to compel compliance. The impetus for Bill C-36 was a series of high profile international recalls in 2007 and 2008 (including lead paint in children's toys and melamine in infant formula), which challenged the Canadian government to modernize its health and food product safety regime to deal with new economic realities, including products, technologies and increased global trade. For companies supplying Canadians with consumer products, the likely consequences will be not just increased regulation but also increased class action litigation. Plaintiffs undoubtedly will seek to take advantage of the self-reporting obligations to be imposed upon corporations plus the regulator-mandated recalls. Pre-CCPSA Regulatory Landscape The primary legislation governing consumer products in Canada since 1969 has been the Hazardous Products Act (HPA). But HPA is limited in scope and effect. It does not apply to all consumer products generally. Rather, it applies to only a limited number of consumer products. In addition to HPA, a few other statutes regulate specific products, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act (food), the Food and Drugs Act (food, drugs, medical devices and cosmetics), and the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (motor vehicles). Under HPA, Health Canada's mandate includes the regulation of: any product, material or substance that is or contains a poisonous, toxic, flammable, explosive, corrosive, infectious, oxidizing or reactive product ... (which) is or is likely to be a danger to the health and safety of the public; or any product designed for household, garden or personal use, for use in sports or recreational activities, as lifesaving equipment or as a toy, plaything or equipment for use by children... (which) is or is likely to be a danger to the health or safety of the public because of its design, construction or contents. In other words, the scope of HPA is limited to products that are considered to be inherently dangerous. CCPSA and Health Canada's New Powers CCPSA repeals and replaces Part I of HPA, and it applies to most consumer products generally, with only limited exceptions. As a result, a wide array of consumer products, not currently subject to detailed regulation, will be caught by this legislative regime. CCPSA contains several broad prohibitions that build upon the list of products restricted by HPA, which will shift the approach of consumer product regulation to an anticipatory position that is more consistent with the consumer product regulatory regime in the U.S. Increased Reporting Responsibilities CCPSA will impose on manufacturers, importers and sellers a duty to notify Health Canada, and the suppliers from whom each of them received the consumer product, of any incident with respect to a consumer product supplied in Canada. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.011
Scholarly communication0.0150.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0180.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefense Counsel JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207