Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50892
FEATURE Recalls lead to stiff trade rules Expect Canada to reintroduce legislation on importers. By Jeremy Hainsworth P otential new Canadian importation regulations could leave in-house counsel and corporate executives scrambling for their dictionaries to make sure they have a clear understanding of the difference between onerous and onus. Once they've got thorough and accurate data on the regula- tions, they can begin to help importer clients and their suppli- ers navigate some potentially choppy legislative waters which, if not piloted properly, could lead to severe penalties, or the end of their business. In April 2008, the Canadian government introduced legis- lation to impose significant responsibilities on importers and their foreign suppliers with regard to products — primarily those dealing with human health and safety. This may include testing and requirements that products meet safety guidelines in Canada, which may be stiffer than those from abroad. Bills C-51 and C-52, the Consumer Products Safety Act, were partly in response to high-profile recalls affecting toys, food, and pharmaceuticals. The bills died on the order paper with the October 2008 Canadian federal election. The re-election of a Conservative government in Canada should be read as a sign that the legislation could reappear. The legislation has been controversial and is being fought primarily by vitamin and health food suppliers. The new laws' application is wide-ranging and presents many pitfalls for im- porters, and for counsel trying to help clients navigate potential changes. Potential is the watchword at this point, says John Bos- cariol, head of McCarthy Tétrault LLP's international trade and investment law group, with the word is legislation will be back on the Parliamentary order paper. "They are coming back," says his Ottawa-based colleague Brenda Swick. "They'll be revived and reintroduced back into Parliament." Both say in-house counsel must be ready to assist their com- panies in meeting the regulations. And, it's going to cost them some money, but the outlay at the front end will be much less than having to pay for violations. "There are financial penalties C ANADIAN Lawyer INHOUSE DECEMBER 2008 7