Bill C-6 (Historical)

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

An Act respecting the safety of consumer products

This enactment modernizes the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada. It creates prohibitions with respect to the manufacturing, importing, selling, advertising, packaging and labelling of consumer products, including those that are a danger to human health or safety. In addition, it establishes certain measures that will make it easier to identify whether a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety and, if so, to more effectively prevent or address the danger. It also creates application and enforcement mechanisms. This enactment also makes consequential amendments to the Hazardous Products Act.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

moved that Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent that I share my time with the member for Kenora.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-6. This proposed legislation delivers on the Government of Canada's commitment to improve protection for Canadian consumers through stronger product safety laws. Canadians should be confident in the quality and safety of the products they buy.

The proposed Canada consumer product safety act would modernize our system by raising the bar for industry and by improving protection of the public against the few who would act irresponsibly.

Most Canadian companies manufacture, import and sell safe products and yet, some high-profile safety issues related to consumer products have caused concern among Canadians. These include lead found in imported children's toys and small, powerful magnets found in a variety of children's products that have been known to break off and can then be swallowed by a child. Those incidents highlighted the need to improve consumer product legislation.

This proposed legislation addresses the need to modernize part I of the Hazardous Products Act, an act that has not been amended since its introduction in the late 1960s. Much has changed in the past four decades. Globalization has meant that many consumer goods available in Canada are now manufactured in countries with lower standards for consumer health and safety. Technology has also had an impact. Many of today's consumer goods contain elements and compounds unheard of 40 years ago. So, over time, the safety net that Canadian consumers have come to expect is not as broad as it could or should be.

Allow me to detail a few of the gaps that exist in the current Hazardous Products Act.

It contains no general prohibition against supplying unsafe consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger. It provides only limited authority to detect and identify unsafe products at an early stage. It does not allow government to respond rapidly to unregulated products or hazards. It does not contain the power for government to recall flawed products when a company is unco-operative or slow in doing so.

In short, the existing act needs to be strengthened. Bill C-6, the proposed Canada consumer product safety act, would do just that.

The proposed new act would make it an offence to supply products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety. It would expand the scope of legislation to cover the manufacture of consumer products. It would introduce mandatory reporting of incidents, requiring industry to report when it has knowledge of a serious accident or incident, even if that incident has not caused harm. This would provide an early warning mechanism to allow government to act.

The proposed new act would give the government the authority to require manufacturers and importers to provide results from tests or studies on products. Packaging or labels on products which are false, misleading or deceptive as they relate to health or safety would be prohibited under the proposed legislation. It would require industry to keep detailed records so products could be traced through their supply chain.

The proposed legislation would also introduce an order power so inspectors could require suppliers to recall or take other corrective measures, as well as to take quick action when the supplier failed to do so.

Finally, the proposed act seeks to put in greater deterrents. Fines and penalties would be significantly increased. Maximum fines of up to $5 million would be in place for some offences, while others would have a maximum that would be left to the court's discretion.

We believe these provisions would give Canadian consumers the protection they deserve and expect when they purchase goods ranging from toys to household goods.

There are several groups of consumer products that are regulated by other acts and would not be subject to the proposed legislation. For example, natural health products, which are regulated by a section of the Food and Drugs Act, would not be subject to this proposed legislation. Some stakeholders have expressed confusion about this. As a result, the Minister of Health has written the chair of the health committee to inform her that our government would be moving forward with an amendment to this bill, making it clear that this proposed legislation would not affect natural health products.

Coupled with other initiatives under the food and consumer safety action plan, this proposed act seeks to provide Canadians with a comprehensive scheme for safer consumer products, responsible suppliers across the board and better informed consumers.

This government takes consumer safety seriously and we are taking action. Canadians look to the federal government to show leadership in enhancing the safety of consumer products in this new global marketplace and we are responding.

This proposed new legislation has been developed in consultation with numerous stakeholders and also reflects input made during the discussion on former Bill C-52 in the second session of the 39th Parliament. After 40 years, it brings Canadian consumer protection up to date and provides the same level of protection enjoyed by residents of other countries.

As well, by raising the strength of our product safety system up to the level of our major trading partners, we are safeguarding our marketplace against the risk of becoming a dumping ground for substandard products.

The lowest price can be alluring for consumers and even more so in tough economic times. As a result, we can expect industry to cut corners where it can. Bill C-6 would help prevent any shortcuts on safety. We need the improvements proposed in Bill C-6 now more than ever before.

With the support of members of the House, consumers and businesses will reap the benefits. We have created the ideal package of consumer protection by combining measures to improve prevention, monitor high risk products and act swiftly if a dangerous product enters the supply chain.

Canadians deserve to have confidence when they buy products at their local store. I trust that all members will agree and will join us in supporting Bill C-6.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health is very simple.

If Bill C-6 were to pass second reading and be sent to the Standing Committee on Health, of which we are both members, and we were to study Bill C-6 in the near future, does he believe, as I do, that it would be in the public's interest to receive all the groups that wish to appear in order to present their point of view on Bill C-6?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for all his help and good work on the health committee.

I believe, as I think he does, that the committee gets to choose which witnesses it would like to bring forward. With any type of legislation it is very important to this government and all members of the House to entertain the opinions of all stakeholders who have an interest in the legislation.

The idea here, on which I think everyone in the House would agree, is that the health and safety of Canadians is very important. Canadians have to have confidence in their government and confidence in consumer products. The legislation on the books now is from the 1960s. It is time we modernized it. We live in a new global framework.

I look forward to the bill going to committee. I know we will be working diligently to bring forward good legislation for the Canadian people.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. parliamentary secretary could comment on how the precautionary principle is being applied to the bill.

Specifically, while precaution is being exercised with respect to recall, it is not being applied to known toxic chemicals. Why is there a discrepancy in application of the principle? Why is there a hesitancy to phase out known and probable carcinogens?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question and for her good work on the health committee.

She is bringing up something that is handled both in the Hazardous Products Act and in CEPA. With this new legislation, there is going to be some crossover between the two pieces of legislation. The government will study this to see what are environmental issues, what is going to be handled under the new act and take appropriate action as required.

I hope that answers the member's question.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have received many calls from people concerned about the natural health products issue. The parliamentary secretary said that Bill C-6 does not deal with natural health products.

I would like to know specifically how he will deal with their concerns in this bill. He mentioned he was going to put forward an amendment to the bill. Could he tell us what sort of amendment it will be?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to give the member a bit of my history, I was one of the members who brought forward Bill C-420, which was a natural health products bill. I continue to be involved with that community.

In the original writing of the bill and in the past version, Bill C-52, there was some confusion in the language and stakeholders from the natural health products community required some clarification of it. The minister has written to the chair of the health committee. We will be putting forward an amendment to clarify that exactly so that the stakeholders from the natural health products community know that this bill excludes natural health products and food and drugs under the Food and Drugs Act.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Oshawa for sharing his time with me today.

I rise in support of Bill C-6, the government's proposed new legislation to better protect consumers from products that might be dangerous to their health or safety. These are improvements that Canadians want and need. They will make a safe marketplace even safer.

We need to adapt our legislation to reflect the changes in the world's changing economy. Products are now being manufactured in places where product safety may not be the high priority that it is to Canadians. We cannot necessarily rely upon those manufacturers and their host countries to adopt a standard acceptable to Canadians.

Whether they come from outside or within Canada, our government needs modern tools to help shield Canadians from flawed or dangerous goods. We have a mandate to work to protect our citizens from harm, no matter where a consumer product comes from.

Changing our consumer product legislation will help maintain Canada's position as one of the best countries in the world in which to live. The world's economy is going through a challenging time. As the world's manufacturers compete for shrinking markets, the temptation for unscrupulous manufacturers will be to cut costs at the expense of the safety of the goods that they produce.

Whether the stream of faulty products is a trickle or a flood, we need to be ready, and this proposed legislation will give us the base we need to stem the flow. While we invest in stimulating the economy, we need to continue to invest in ways to keep us safe from dangerous consumer products. Bill C-6 would help us do that.

Our government has invested $113 million over two years to support the action plan to modernize and strengthen Canada's system for food, consumer products and health products. The plan is built on three elements: first, active prevention, to avoid as many problems as possible before they arise; second, targeted oversight, to closely monitor consumer products that pose a higher risk to health and safety; and third, a rapid response so we can take action more quickly and effectively on problems that do occur.

I would now like to elaborate on these three elements.

The first aim of the proposed legislation before this House is to improve prevention. Bill C-6 would establish a general prohibition against manufacturing, importing, advertising or selling consumer products that pose unreasonable dangers to human health and safety.

Importantly, I should mention that the natural health products are exempt from the proposed consumer product safety act, as they have their own regulatory framework under the Food and Drugs Act. Some stakeholders have expressed confusion about this. As a result, the Minister of Health has written to the chair of the health committee to inform her that our government will be moving forward with an amendment to this bill making it clear that it will not affect our natural health products.

Second, Bill C-6 targets products that pose the highest risk for oversight. It proposes to allow the minister to require commercial manufacturers and importers to provide safety test and study results for their products. Suppliers would be required to provide reports regarding any serious incidents and defects involving their products, including near misses, and the manufacturer or importer would need to provide a detailed report, including its plan of action to respond.

Industry is already subject to mandatory reporting in the European Union and the United States. Therefore, Bill C-6 would bring us up to the same standard as two of our most significant trading partners. Suppliers would also be required to keep detailed information about the sources and destinations of their products to help track products that need to be recalled.

Third, the proposed legislation will give us new tools to help us respond to problems as rapidly as possible. Governments could require companies to pull unsafe consumer products from the shelves as soon as the problem is discovered, and we would also have the power to act swiftly if the supplier fails to do so.

Will Bill C-6, we are also seeking to raise fines to levels that are similar to those in other industrialized countries. The financial penalties must be serious and a deterrent to those who might risk human health and safety. For example, the maximum fine under the Hazardous Products Act is now set at $1 million. With this proposed bill now before the House, the maximum fine would be raised to $5 million for some offences and possibly higher fines at the discretion of the courts for other offences.

However, we will not rely on this proposed legislation alone. Laws and fines are an important part of the solution but not the only solution. We will be working with other countries to promote safe manufacturing processes. We will work with our own industry to improve awareness of health and safety issues in the manufacturing process.

It bears mentioning that our current safety system has served us well and the vast majority of Canadian manufacturers, importers and other providers and suppliers provide safe products, but our current consumer product legislation was drafted in 1969. We are now part of a global economy and a global marketplace. We need to modernize our system to meet the new reality and to safeguard against the very few who do act irresponsibly.

Our Hazardous Products Act has not been thoroughly reviewed in 40 years and it needs to be modernized. Without new legislation Canada risks becoming a dumping ground for the world's unsafe products. This is not the future we want for Canada's marketplace.

The proposed legislation will give our inspectors the power they need to get unsafe products out of the marketplace before they get to the homes of Canadians. Improving health and safety is in everyone's interest and so I urge my fellow members to vote in favour of Bill C-6.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could comment on how this legislation compares with that of the EU and the U.S.

I would also like to hear his comments regarding why the legislation does not include mandatory labelling like proposition 65 which has provided Californians with information they can use to reduce their exposure to listed chemicals that may not have been adequately controlled under other state or federal laws.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the goal of this legislation is to bring Canada into the modern marketplace that is consistent with the legislation that is currently in place in the European Union and in the United States.

With respect to the second part of the hon. member's question, some of the legislation is currently found in the Environmental Protection Act.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from the Liberal Party member when she asked about mandatory labelling, which is a pretty important issue to be dealing with here.

One of my constituents suffered all last summer because she used sunscreen that contained chemicals called oxybenzone and benzophenone-3, which I had never heard of, but the chemicals caused her huge problems with reactions. One of her relatives also had the same sort of reaction. She tells me that this is a big issue that the federal government should be dealing with. Part of it has to do with having proper labelling on the product.

The member asked a very good question and her question did not really receive a full answer from the government member.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this legislation is designed to deal with issues that arise. If there are safety issues with respect to the product, this legislation is designed to do that, include labelling.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to support Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

Albert Schweitzer, doctor, philosopher and Nobel Prize winner, warned that “Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the earth”.

I would like to give the House a lesson in history regarding a product and a devastating disease.

Animal slaughterhouse wastes have been recycled into animal feed since the beginning of the 20th century. In the mid-1970s, the U.S. department of agriculture decided that carcasses of sheep afflicted with the disease scrapie should not be used in animal or human foods. Tragically, the U.K. government decided that its industry should be left to decide how its equipment should be operated. It was not until 1996 that processing standards were introduced.

In the United States, government oversight and relatively inexpensive restrictions may have prevented the mad cow epidemic. In the United Kingdom, industry self-policing provided ideal conditions for the development of the progressive, fatal disease that affects the brain.

Reducing risks to health has been a preoccupation of people, physicians, and politicians for the last 5,000 years.

Virtually every major advance in public health has involved the reduction or the elimination of risk, with the result being that the world is a safer place today. It is safer from accidents, deadly or incurable diseases and safer from hazardous consumer goods.

Therefore, it is the government's duty to do all it reasonably can to accurately assess and reduce risks, such as making sure that food, medicines and other products are safe.

Although government can rarely hope to reduce risks to zero, it can aim to lower them to a more acceptable level and should openly and transparently communicate risk and risk reduction strategies to the public.

The Canadian government introduced Bill C-6 on January 26, 2009, to ensure, through regulation, that risk is reduced and that Canadians have access to safer consumer products.

The bill is important because it would fill many regulatory gaps and give government the power to issue recalls and raise fines. Companies and their directors, officers and employees may be held criminally liable for contravention and penalized up to $5 million.

The bill would prohibit the manufacture, importation, advertising and sale of a consumer product that is a danger to human health or safety, is the subject of a recall or does not meet the regulatory requirements that apply to the product.

The bill would require that all persons who manufacture, import or sell a consumer product for commercial purposes maintain documents identifying from whom they obtained the product and to whom they sold it, and provide regulators with all related information within two days of becoming aware of an incident. These mechanisms will help ensure that products can easily be removed from store shelves when a recall is made.

Bill C-6 would also give regulators the power to order manufacturers and importers to conduct tests on a product, to provide documents related to those studies and to compile any information required to confirm compliance.

The bill also would give inspectors new wide-ranging powers, including the power to order a recall if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety. These powers may be invoked even when there is a lack of full scientific certainty.

This is a strength of the bill, as scientific standards for demonstrating cause and effect are extremely rigorous and often time-consuming, substantial damage to humans may result during long testing. For example, many experts strongly suspected that smoking caused lung cancer long before overwhelming proof became available. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of smokers died waiting for a definitive answer. Thousands of others, however, quit smoking because they suspected, as there were 7,000 articles by 1964, that tobacco probably caused lung cancer.

When a product raises threats of harm to human health, precautionary methods should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

Perhaps the following questions might be asked at committee. Why does the bill not phase out or ban known carcinogens and other toxic chemicals in consumer products? Why does the bill not create a mandatory testing and labelling scheme? Does the bill go far enough to protect the health of Canadians from toxic imports? Will the government dedicate the necessary resources to enforce the bill?

The United Steelworkers remind us that, “recalls and fines all happen after the fact. Canada needs a strategy that repairs...trade deals that have led to toxic imports crossing our border in the first place”, such as in 2007, when millions of Chinese made toys were recalled by both the EU and the U.S. The European Commission subsequently identified over 1,600 products that were considered risky.

We live in an increasingly chemical society. Toxic chemicals are found in everyday consumer products, including art supplies, kitchenware, personal products, pet food, toys, water bottles and many products intended for babies.

When researchers test the air in our homes, the average readings for volatile organic compounds increase in areas where cleaners are stored. CBC's Marketplace showed Pledge registered 273 parts per billion, Clorox wipes more than 1,000 parts per billion. Anything over 500 parts per billion could be a problem for people with sensitivities. Lysol's disinfecting spray, however, recorded 1,200 parts per million, or 1,000 times higher than the Clorox.

Experts do not know how dangerous these chemicals might be, but they are starting to worry. Dr. Gideon Koren, a pediatrician at the Hospital for Sick Children, asks, “How can we, as one of the most advanced countries in the world, allow these to enter our household for small children, without the appropriate testing to see that it's safe?”

Young children are especially vulnerable because they virtually live on the floor. Everything goes into their mouths, and their basic body systems are still developing.

We cannot continue to repeat the key mistake of the past, namely, responding late to early warnings as we did with benzene and PCBs.

Ever since anemia was diagnosed among young women engaged in the manufacture of bicycle tires in 1897, benzene was known to be a powerful bone marrow poison. Recommendations made in the U.K. and the U.S. in the 1920s for substitution of benzene with less toxic solvents went unheeded. Benzene-related diseases of the bone marrow continued to increase dramatically through the first half of the 20th century. Benzene was not withdrawn from consumer products in the U.S. until 1978, and this was done by manufacturers on a voluntary basis.

A chief medical inspector of factories wrote in 1934, “Looking back in the light of present knowledge, it is impossible not to feel that opportunities for discovery and prevention of disease were badly missed”.

As we continue to debate the bill, let us ensure that in 2034, future generations do not lament missed opportunities.

I would like to share my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for St. Paul's.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

As we are in the first round of speeches, the hon. member needs unanimous consent to split her time. Is there unanimous consent of the House for the member to split her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech is well documented.

We have a lot of products and in those products are a lot of byproducts, many of them carcinogens. Canada has gone a long way to identify much of what goes into products, on which we can pride ourselves. This seems to take it one step further.

The question I have today pertains to imported items. An issue that comes up often is Canada goes to great lengths to have safe products. However, we do not see what is coming in from other countries. As far as the testing and labelling of imported products goes, how will the bill help us get around products that are dangerous to Canadians when these goods are imported?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, U.S. companies must label their ingredients in consumer products under the fair packaging and labeling act. In California, products that contain chemicals known or suspected by the state to cause cancer or disrupt normal reproductive functions must have a warning label.

The European Union has an eco-label system. Products such as cleaners, indoor paints and varnishes have to meet certain environmental criteria. Products cannot carry the eco-label flower if they contain cancer-causing substances. It is really important to understand that cosmetics in the European Union are highly regulated. Cosmetic manufacturers must provide safety information on all their ingredients and substances known or suspected to cause cancer are not allowed in European cosmetics.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, 65% of consumer goods sold in Canada are imported. Perhaps I should ask a government member, but I will ask the member this. Has the use of counterfeit approval labels, which are primarily associated with offshore products, been adequately dealt with in this bill?

As we know, that is a big issue with offshore products. Counterfeit labels are being mass-produced in other areas of the world. Those products come in to Canada with counterfeit labels on them and the products are not what the labels say they are.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important issue and we would like to hear about that in committee.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the public is hungry for reliable product safety information and a law that will get unsafe products off the shelves, if not keep them from being sold in the first place. Parents especially want safe toys. Ninety consumer products, many used by children, were recalled last year and already thirty-seven more this year.

Would the member comment on how she sees the bill affect the safety of products that are used by our children in particular?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. As I mentioned, children spend their lives virtually on the floor. They put everything in their mouths and their body systems are still developing. We have to know what is going into the products they use.

I point out that the Canadian Cancer Society reports that healthy lifestyle choices could prevent about 50% of cancers. Each of us has pollutants in our blood and urine: heavy metals, pesticides and other toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead and PCBs. The government currently requires big polluters to report how much is coming out of smokestacks, but it does not require them to report what is going into the products they are making.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

This enactment modernizes the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada. It creates prohibitions with respect to the manufacturing, and especially the advertising, selling, importing, packaging and labelling of consumer products that are a danger to human health or safety.

The purpose of this bill is to make it easier to identify a consumer product that may be a danger and to more effectively prevent or address the danger.

The Liberal Party has always had a commitment to improving the health and safety of Canadians. We will continue to support measures which reinforce the regulatory process in order to be sure that Canadians are consuming healthy products.

The purpose of Bill C-6 is to protect the public by addressing or preventing dangers posed to human health or safety by consumer products that are circulated within Canada and those that are imported.

The bill was first introduced as Bill C-52 in the 39th Parliament and was part of the package that also included Bill C-51, which dealt specifically with natural health products. While Bill C-51 was considered contentious legislation, Bill C-52, now Bill C-6, was generally more accepted by stakeholders, but I do not have to tell the government that this is still hugely problematic to many stakeholders.

An analysis of the bill makes evident that the current consumer products safety system functions on a voluntary basis. If a product is dangerous or poses a health threat, the corporations can issue a recall. The new would bill prohibit the sale, import, manufacturing, packaging, labelling and advertising of consumer products that might pose a risk to consumers. While voluntary recalls will continue to happen, inspectors named under the act or by the minister will now be able to order the recall of a consumer product.

The proposed bill will give substantial regulating powers to the minister. It will be necessary to further study these powers to ensure transparency, effectiveness and accountability. It also requires further study to ensure that it can be implemented effectively.

Increased numbers of inspectors will have to be named by the minister and we need to ensure that the human resources and funding are available to do the job properly.

As with Bill C-11, I will be proposing an amendment at the committee stage, instructing the Minister of Health to consult with an expert advisory committee with a mandate to give public advice before the minister can restrict access to a product.

We have been hearing from many stakeholders who are concerned that C-6 will negatively affect access to natural health products.

The Liberal Party has a deep conviction that Canadians have a fundamental right to make their own choices as far as looking after themselves and remaining in good health are concerned, and that we must guarantee them access to those choices. We have no intention of limiting the consumption, sale and distribution of safe natural products. On the contrary, we wish to promote and protect the health and safety of Canadians and improve our regulations so that they may have access to the foods, remedies and consumer products that are the healthiest and most effective.

That is why we asked the minister to submit Bill C-6 to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons before second reading. This would have provided answers to most of the questions raised in your letter. Unfortunately, the minister refused to do so.

I am concerned, yet again, that the proper stakeholder consultations did not take place with regard to Bill C-6 as with Bill C-11. It was clear during the Bill C-11 hearings that the key stakeholders were not consulted properly during the drafting of the bill. As we know information sessions are very different to meaningful consultations.

We have already heard concerns from key stakeholders that Bill C-6 needs an amendment to deal with tobacco manufacturers and another amendment regarding hazardous substances and toxic chemicals, as the member for Etobicoke North so eloquently put forward.

We have been transparent with the Department of Health and provided it with copies of these proposed amendments and will insist that they are included in a future bill.

If this was to be a repeat of Bill C-11, where information sessions were substituted for meaningful consultation, I hope the government has learned its lesson and will make the appropriate government amendments and bring back the witnesses with the most serious concerns and ensure the bill, as amended, would be acceptable to them.

In any bill we need to ensure that Parliament is able to do its job to develop the best pieces of legislation possible, which requires thorough stakeholder dialogue and input.

As I said, the Liberal caucus has asked that the bill be brought to the committee before second reading so it would be possible to make substantial changes as asked for by the stakeholders. We will reluctantly support the bill going to committee after second reading, but we want Canadians to be assured that we will be continuing to be vigilant in the study of Bill C-6 as it enters the health committee, as we had successful changes with Bill C-11.

It is very important that politicians do the politics, that scientists do the science and that the transmission of information from the scientists to the politician is done in a way in which citizens of Canada are included in the decision.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member whether she would agree that the act should create a hot list, similar to that for cosmetics, listing carcinogens, reproductive toxins, neuro toxins; that these substances should be prohibited in products, with temporary exemptions granted only to the extent that the product is essential and only where alternatives do not exist; and that at a bare minimum, any product containing such chemicals should be required to carry a hazard label, as is required in California, Vermont and the European Union? I assume that the member would be in agreement with that list. I know she is a medical doctor, so I would like to get her opinion on that issue.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that we have a lot to learn from the ways that other jurisdictions have dealt with exactly these issues, particularly, around importation and around how we know that what is on the label is really what is in the product and for that we also need resources. We have learned from the FDA in the United States that it may not be able to inspect even 1% of the drugs that come into that country.

I thank the member very much for raising these issues around counterfeit products and labelling. If the member has any suggestions of witnesses who should come before the committee, we would very much like to hear from any of the stakeholders that he has heard from who are concerned. We will do our best to make this bill as good as it can be.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Paul's criticized the government for how it conducted consultations with regard to Bill C-11, and rightly so. She said they were botched, that they were more like information sessions than meaningful consultations, and that the government must ensure that all of the concerns expressed by the witnesses are heard and properly addressed.

My question is for the member as someone who voted in favour of the bill at the report stage here in this House, as well as for her colleagues. Following the committee's examination of Bill C-11, there were some lingering concerns expressed by expert witnesses who work with pathogens and toxins every day. So why did she decide to ignore those witnesses and vote in favour of Bill C-11 at the report stage?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to all the experts, I am completely confident that their concerns will be addressed by the regulatory process.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is called the Canada consumer product safety act. However, in reality, whether we are actually protecting consumers or not will very much depend on whether there are enforcement mechanisms and whether we can actually trigger the kind of decisive action that consumers are counting on us to ensure is in the legislation, so that they can be absolutely assured that products that they are consuming, that they are in contact with, will in fact be safe.

I wonder whether the member would agree that we actually need to include some very specific triggers for government actions and criteria around what should trigger that kind of action and--

[An hon. member]

And why didn't they do it?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Yes, exactly, Mr. Speaker. The question is also why has the government not acted?

I would like to suggest five of them, just by way of example.

Do we need to decide whether the release of harmful substances from products during use or after disposal, including to house and into air, must be considered?

The potential harm from chronic exposure to the substance itself should be considered, in my view. The potential for harm to vulnerable populations, of course, is another. The cumulative exposure to a substance Canadians receive from the products of concern--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I must stop the hon. member there to allow enough time for the hon. member for St. Paul's to respond.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these are excellent questions. Whether or not those questions can be dealt within the law or whether they would be dealt with specifically in the regulations or, again, in a framework that the expert advisory committee would have to deal with in terms of advising the minister in a totally transparent way needs to be looked at. What we are saying is that if we are going to have an advisory committee that deals with the science, then we want that science--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I have to stop the hon. member for St. Paul's there.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes has the floor.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon as the Bloc Québécois health critic to address Bill C-6, an act respecting the safety of consumer products, which was introduced by the Minister of Health at first reading in this House on January 29, 2009.

I will read the summary of this bill.

This enactment modernizes the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada. It creates prohibitions with respect to the manufacturing, importing, selling, advertising, packaging and labelling of consumer products, including those that are a danger to human health or safety. In addition, it establishes certain measures that will make it easier to identify whether a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety and, if so, to more effectively prevent or address the danger. It also creates application and enforcement mechanisms. This enactment also makes consequential amendments to the Hazardous Products Act.

The very least we can say is it is about time. In fact, we have known since November 2006, because of a report tabled by the Auditor General, that there are problems and that urgent action is needed. Those responsible for the safety of consumer products were not given or no longer had the means to effectively carry out their duties. Nevertheless, we have had to wait more than two years to debate, in this House, at second reading, Bill C-6 on consumer products.

I would just like to give a bit of background. As I said, we waited far too long before we could debate this bill in this House. Canada currently does not require that manufacturers of hazardous products under its jurisdiction, such as cosmetics, cradles, tents and carpets, test their products or prove that they do not pose any threat to consumer health and safety. As a result, consumers would not have any real protection against incidents like the one that forced the recall of a number of products some time ago. Many parents feared the worst and, with the approach of the holiday season and other gift-giving occasions, wondered whether what was on the shelves in stores was safe and what precautions they should take to make sure that what they were buying for their beloved children was hazard-free.

In December, after four months of inertia in the wake of the first toy recall in the summer of 2007, the government finally proposed to introduce a bill early in 2008 and to change its strategy for regulating product safety.

This inaction created a real feeling of insecurity, especially around toy purchases. You could feel it when you listened to consumers talking about product safety on radio and TV and read their letters in the papers.

But it is important to point out that instead of introducing a bill quickly, the government decided last fall to post a survival guide online to help parents protect their children's safety. In late November, it launched a personal test kit consumers could use to determine the safety of consumer products themselves. This is a government that is clearly abandoning its responsibility for product safety.

It made consumers and parents responsible for making sure that the goods they buy are safe for their families and children. The government should be responsible for making sure that consumer products are safe, but it abdicated its responsibilities the moment it put that guide online.

However, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, in November 2006, the Auditor General of Canada warned the government about concerns involving dangerous consumer products. These concerns were expressed by program managers. Chapter 8, Allocating Funds to Regulatory Programs—Health Canada, clearly indicated that product safety program managers could not do their jobs properly for a number of reasons. I will read points 8.21 and 8.22 of the Auditor General's November 2006 report.

Product safety program managers considered many of their regulatory activities to be insufficient to meet their regulatory responsibilities. We found these opinions were confirmed in an internal study of the program's resource needs, documents relating to resource allocation, and in interviews conducted as part of our audit.

The product safety program has requested additional funding, but it received very little funds for special initiatives in 2005-06 to address the shortfalls presented above. Program managers indicated that their inability to carry out these responsibilities could have consequences for the health and safety of Canadians, such as exposure by consumers to non-compliant hazardous products. There is also a risk of liability to the Crown.

Because of the Auditor General's report, the Government of Canada has known since November 2006 about the risk to consumers resulting from inadequate program funding. This raises a number of concerns about the government's real desire and commitment to move forward. However, now that we have Bill C-6, we need to take a closer look and pass it at second reading so that we can hear from stakeholders in committee without delay.

I therefore encourage all of my colleagues to proceed appropriately with the second reading examination of this bill, not only here in the House but also at the report stage in the Standing Committee on Health. As colleagues have done before me, I would encourage all stakeholders, as well as all colleagues here in the House, to give us their views and any clarifications in order to ensure that Bill C-6 is as effective as possible and that lack of consumer safety will be, no longer the rule, but the exception, and a rare exception at that.

Essentially, this bill comprises five measures, which I shall present to my colleagues and to all those listening this afternoon to this debate on second reading.

I will give a brief overview of the five measures aimed at reversing the burden of proof concerning safety.

First of all, there is the safety of consumer products. As I said, currently, no constraints are imposed on manufacturers or importers. They do not have to prove that their products are not dangerous and do not pose a threat to consumer safety. Bill C-6 is intended to reverse this. In future it will be up to the manufacturer to prove to us that the products offered to consumes are without danger.

The bill also proposes forcing manufacturers and importers of consumer products to test the safety of their products regularly, and, most importantly, to disclose the test results in order to ensure maximum transparency.

The bill would also require businesses to report all measures taken or illnesses caused because of their products, whatever the country. This puts the onus on manufacturers and importers, because it forces them to prove that their products are safe,

The second measure has to do with increasing inspectors' powers. As the Auditor General stated in a report, in order to ensure that this bill is implemented and effective, inspectors on the ground will have more powers when Bill C-6 comes into force.

For that to happen, consumer products will have to be subject to recall, relabelling or a licensing amendment. These inspectors will be the means to enforce this bill's most important provisions.

It is important to point out, however, that increased duties and responsibilities can raise a certain number of concerns and questions. As part of the committee's review of this bill, it will be important to confirm whether there are enough human resources to ensure that the strict measures outlined in Bill C-6 can be properly monitored and enforced across Canada.

This bill also gives the minister new powers concerning recalls. At this time, health authorities do not have the power to recall consumer products found to be dangerous. Recalls are issued on a voluntary basis by manufacturers and importers themselves. This bill would give the minister the power to recall any products that are defective or endanger consumer safety. However, the regulations will stipulate the requirements and the conditions under which the minister can act. In committee, it will also be important to look at how this recall power can be executed.

There are also stricter punitive measures that will provide a greater deterrence. At this time, for instance, the fines imposed are usually around $5,000. With Bill C-6, an offence could lead to a fine of up to $5 million for the company at fault, and people caught red-handed could face up to two years in prison.

Lastly, Bill C-6 will introduce product traceability. The bill includes a record-keeping requirement that could be compared to a traceability process, as I said earlier. With this record-keeping system, we will be able to determine the product's history and quickly track down retailers who have the product, as well as its origin.

In addition, if an incident occurs here or elsewhere in the world, the manufacturer or importer is required to notify the minister, which will allow the authorities to more efficiently remove products that could pose problems.

I would also like to share a few comments, and we will have the opportunity to come back to this in committee and further question the officials who drafted the bill, as well as the Minister of Health. In the preamble—it is unusual to spend any time on the preamble, because we spend much more time on the clauses of the bill—there is a definition that approaches the precautionary principle. It would be interesting to know what the government's real intention behind this statement is, with regard to enforcing the legislation.

I would simply like to read part of the preamble into the record:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that a lack of full scientific certainty is not to be used as a reason for postponing measures that prevent adverse effects on human health if those effects could be serious or irreversible;

The preamble also contains a general statement about the relationship between consumer goods and the environment:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that, given the impact activities with respect to consumer products may have on the environment, there is a need to create a regulatory system regarding consumer products that is complementary to the regulatory system regarding the environment;

Outside of the preamble, the environment is only mentioned in clauses 16 and 17 of the bill in connection with disclosure of personal information. It will be interesting to ask the government about its intentions.

Would the government like to go a little bit further in the regulations and impose more environmental requirements?

We can come back to that. With regard to regulations, Bill C-6 contains a number of measures that can be taken by the minister by regulation. Thus, the regulatory powers are expanded and it will be interesting to see in committee how the minister will use this discretionary power and what limits will be placed on this power.

In closing, I would simply like to say that the industry cannot be allowed to be self-regulated. There have been a number of cases in the food industry, not covered by this bill, demonstrating that self-regulation alone cannot address all problems.

We have to give some teeth to the bill and some powers to the inspectors responsible for enforcing it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest.

I would like to make a comment and ask a question. He clearly noted that, when it comes to safety, self-regulation does not work. There is virtually nothing in this bill to address imported goods. Two-thirds of all the products purchased in Canada are imported. That is where we have seen one problem after another, without implementing any comprehensive way to look at and inspect these products before they arrive on the Canadian market.

In addition, we have a government that promotes less safety and lower standards in every area, whether it is rail transportation or air travel. We must ask ourselves whether we can trust a government that systematically ignores all existing safety measures and continues to give us substandard safety systems in the area of transportation that put Canadians at greater risk.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of my colleague's comment, it will be important to take an equitable approach. Companies based here that manufacture consumer products here must be subject to the same rules as companies that manufacture their products abroad. Once Bill C-6 is adopted, we need to make sure that all companies are on a level playing field. My colleague is right to raise this issue. We need to have inspectors everywhere in order to make sure that the enforcement measures clearly set out in Bill C-6 can be applied. What good is it to tighten the rules if there is no one in the field to make sure that they are followed?

My colleague was also right to mention that we have seen the negative effects of self-regulation in recent months. Crises have occurred just because funding for the organizations that protect public safety has been cut.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. He obviously knows a good deal about this bill and is well informed. By the way, what a beautiful name his riding has: Verchères—Les Patriotes. It is wonderful.

I would like the member to explain how he imagines the committee will determine how and where these products will be checked. Will Canada follow the example of Japan, which sends government technicians to other countries to test products and determine whether they meet Japan's standards and criteria, instead of waiting until the products reach Japan? We know that private companies are reluctant to send products back. As a result, hazardous goods sometimes wind up in our landfills instead of landfills in the countries where they are produced. I would like the member to talk about that.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his very good question.

It is the kind of question that we will have to put to knowledgeable individuals when we study this element in committee. It is important to know where and how officials will be checking imported products to ensure that they are completely safe for people.

Bill C-6 makes importers and manufacturers responsible for product safety. That is important because they are ultimately accountable for making sure that the products they put on store shelves are safe. That being said, because we want more control over the process through Bill C-6, we must make sure, very early on in the process, that the products that end up on our store shelves are safe.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker for the Liberal Party indicated that the Liberal Party was always interested in safety issues. However, the Liberals were in power for 12 years and were asleep at the switch on this whole file. In fact, by 2005-06, more than 40% of the product recalls were a direct result of U.S.-initiated action. We not only see that there, but we also see it in crime issues and financial issues. The American system is able to prosecute and put people in jail, but we are not able to do that here in Canada.

The Liberals were asleep for all those years. PCs are really free market people and believe in the industry policing itself. Can we really trust them to enforce this act?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleague to refer to what I said.

The Auditor General recognized the problem in 2006. It is now nearly May 2009, and this is the first time this bill has come before the House. As the saying goes, the members opposite were asleep at the wheel. The Liberals did not do any better, however. The Auditor General discovered these shortcomings in 2006, and they were in power shortly before the study was conducted. As such, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have dragged their heels when it comes to making sure that products on store shelves are safe.

However, now that we know about it, we have to act quickly. That is why I am asking all of my colleagues to move this bill through second reading and to ensure that the committee's review will be both efficient and effective so that we can take a thorough look at all of the bill's consequences. We have to make sure that, if and when it is adopted, the government will do everything in its power to make sure that the legislation has all the teeth it needs to ensure that consumers no longer have to worry as they have recently.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:59 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6 today.

Canadians are in dire need of updated consumer safety legislation. The fact is that more and more consumer products are recalled each year. Many of these products are not made in Canada and, in most cases, those that are imported are imported from China. In fact, products imported from China have often been recalled.

A scan of the latest incidents in today's news reveals toxic drywall from China, high levels of lead found in jewellery imported from China and toaster ovens recalled due to risks of shocks and burns.

Consumers need to know that their government is taking every action to protect its citizens from potentially toxic and harmful products. The sad reality is that consumers are not adequately protected by the outdated Hazardous Products Act. The 40 year old act has not been effective in identifying or removing dangerous products, leaving Canadian dependent on product alerts and recalls by the U.S. product safety commission instead of Health Canada in the majority of cases.

Consumers should receive protection from their own government instead of relying on their neighbours to the south to take action.

Bill C-6 attempts to address some of those weaknesses in the following ways: empowering the government to order the recall of dangerous products; increasing government authority to require information and action from manufacturers and importers; requiring mandatory reporting by manufacturers and importers of incidents involving death or injury from a product's use or any awareness of potential harm from a product or actions taken elsewhere; and, of course, applying heavy fines to violators.

Despite these positive changes, improvements are needed if the bill is to be effective and supportable. Despite the number of changes and improvements to the outdated Hazardous Products Act, our party has some serious concerns with several measures included within the bill. A number of improvements are needed to ensure that the bill is effective and fulfils the spirit of its mandate. I will look at each of them now.

The first concern that New Democrats have with this proposed legislation is the effect or lack thereof on import safety. The fact is that a whopping 65% of consumer goods sold in Canada are imported. The bill, in its current form, lacks any comprehensive system to ensure that items are safe before entering Canada. The risk management approach may target high risk sources for higher surveillance but overall the system depends on reacting to safety problems identified through use after the fact.

A growing problem with the import market is the use of counterfeited approval labels that are also primarily associated with offshore products. This growing concern has not been dealt with.

The United Steelworkers has suggested implementing a stated ban on products containing toxic substances that would be enforced through a pre-entry testing system, financed through a service fee applied at the border. This is one option and another would be to look at the current labelling requirements.

The second concern I would like to address is that there is too much discretion in the hands of the minister. While inspectors have been empowered with greater authority, many of their actions are optional, even when they believe human health is at risk. Related to the issue of discretion is the weak nature of the language contained in the bill. In order to give the bill the teeth it needs to actually protect consumers, the language should and needs to be strengthened. It should be strengthened by changing instances where it stipulates that the minister “may take action” to “has a responsibility to act” or “must act”.

Another particularly alarming omission from this new version of Bill C-6 from its former incarnation of Bill C-52 is the absence of a clause titled “disclosure to public” under the minister's responsibilities. In its current form, Bill C-6 does not require the government to inform consumers of safety issues that have been identified.

Upon questioning of government representatives when this issue came up, it was stated that companies would be less likely to report unbecoming behaviour if they knew it would lead to public scrutiny. What is more important, a business' bottom line or the safety of consumers?

That brings me to another issue with the bill in its current form, labelling.

The review of the 40-year-old act provides a perfect opportunity to beef up the standards for informing consumers and letting them know exactly what ingredients are contained in consumer products. However, if passed in its current form, the bill would allow for the continued sale of products that, by their nature, pose a risk to human safety.

Finally, the bill can look one way on paper but enforcement, as we have seen with the government, seems to be an entirely different story. Though the bill implies a more proactive, aggressive approach to product safety, it is not likely that any of these measures will be put into effect. These measures are completely out of character with the Conservative government's hands-off approach to industry and that what looks good on paper will likely never be put into practice.

In order to make the bill worthwhile there are several amendments that must be made at the committee level.

It is time to show industries that there are two choices: Make safe products and have them allowed in Canada or do not and prohibit them from entering the country. While the bill emphasizes big fines and tougher enforcement, when in history has the government been in favour in interfering in the affairs of business and industry?

Changes need to be made to the legislation to hold the government accountable and responsible for maintaining an adequate inspection capacity and staff to process, investigate and respond to the new reporting system. Without proper enforcement measures holding the government to task to act, there is no guarantee that any action will occur.

The NDP is rightly concerned that the Conservative ideology of non-interfering with business is affecting the safety of Canadian families and their children.

I will now address some of the issues raised by a number of stakeholder groups. The Canadian Cancer Society has a number of recommendations to amend the bill, the first being the removal of the exclusion provision for tobacco products in section 4. This amendment would remove the exclusion provision stating that essentially no part of the consumer product safety act can ever apply to tobacco products.

The second amendment would be adding tobacco products to schedule 1. The effect of this amendment would be that the consumer product safety act would not apply to tobacco products but that there would be flexibility so that in the future there could be a regulation providing that all or part of the act would apply to tobacco products. Tobacco products would thus be treated the same as all of the other products listed in schedule 1, such as explosives, pesticides, drugs, cosmetics and vehicles.

We agree with the Environmental Defence organization as it also has a number of amendments that it would like to see in Bill C-6. The general prohibition in the act should be expanded so that no consumer product can be imported or marketed if it is a danger to human health or safety, either through direct exposure or exposure via the environment. It also calls for a section to be added prohibiting substances on the list of toxic substances from consumer products except where the substance is not a hazard when used in a consumer product or the manufacturer or importer can demonstrate that no reasonable alternative exists. It also asks that a clause be included stating that nothing in the act limits powers to regulate substances in consumer products.

This legislation should include a duty for the government to act when it is made aware of a risk from a consumer product. There should also be a duty for the minister to inform the public when he or she is made aware of a risk in a consumer product.

The bill needs action and, therefore, in deciding whether a danger to health or safety exists, the legislation should require the government to consider the release of harmful substances from products during use or after disposal, including to house dust and indoor air.

The bill should create a hot list similar to that for cosmetics, including carcinogens, reproductive toxins and neurotoxins. These substances should be prohibited in products, with temporary exceptions granted only to the extent that the product is essential and only where alternatives do not exist. At a bare minimum, any product containing such chemicals should be required to carry a hazard label, as is required in parts of the U.S. and the European Union.

The legislation should also establish a list of product classes at highest risk of containing or releasing hazardous substances. There should be explicit guidance prioritizing the routine inspection of these product classes. Furthermore, this bill should require labelling of all ingredients, as is already the case with cosmetics.

Canadian consumers want reliable product safety information and a law that will get unsafe products off the shelves, if not keep them from being for sale in the first place. All parents and, as a father of two young daughters, we want safe products.

New Democrats will do everything to protect all Canadians across our great country.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his attention to safe products. I totally agree that Canadians are quite worried about that, especially in light of recent events. I certainly would not agree with moves to decrease inspectors' presence on the floor, such as with listeriosis or in proposals related to grain.

In the last iteration of this bill, which was Bill C-51, there were some concerns from natural food producers and retailers. I wonder if the member believes that those concerns have been taken care of or if those concerns have been moved forward into this bill.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe food inspection will be part of Bill C-6. It is looking totally at product safety. However, I do agree with the hon. member that there needs to be a more thorough investigation into food inspection in our country. We have seen the unfortunate circumstances and deaths that occurred in our country last year. Therefore, in relation to that subject, I do agree with the member.

I do think Bill C-6 needs more teeth to ensure that all aspects of consumer products and consumer safety can be addressed in our country.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on the question from the member for Yukon.

I want it to be perfectly clear to the hon. member from the NDP that natural health products are not part of Bill C-6. Is that his understanding? That is the fact.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would look to the government to ensure that this is clarified, but I do not believe natural health products are addressed in Bill C-6, as it was in the previous government. I was not elected then but through my research I have been able to identify that. I do not believe that natural health products are necessarily in this bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is not quite right. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health spoke to this at the first debate period he indicated that the Minister of Health had written to the chair of the health committee to advise that he would be bringing forth an amendment to deal with the fact that there appears that this matter would cover natural health products to some extent and in some regard.

This is a very serious issue. Hon. members have received, I am sure, many letters from constituents who use natural health products and they want to be absolutely assured that every step is taken to ensure these products are excluded from this bill.

Why is the Minister of Health writing to the chair of the health committee before we have finished the second reading debate? Substantive changes cannot be made at committee. Once there is a vote at second reading, it is approved in principal. I am concerned that if there are some flaws in the bill, maybe it cannot be rectified very easily at committee unless the government decides to either withdraw it now and make some changes or bring forward some sort of a report stage motion, but it should make that commitment now.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his clarification on the amendment. It does bring forward some of the issues that I talked about in my speech.

The bill does not address all of the issues affecting consumer products and what is being put on the shelves for our citizens. The government needs to ensure when it brings forward legislation that it looks at all aspects.

We talked about food safety and natural health products. There are bills out there right now, but this one needs to have more teeth to ensure that consumers are protected when they purchase things off the shelves.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could talk about the importation of what we have seen to be toxic substances, indeed toxicity in general with respect to the products that come to our shores. Canada imports a lot of things. I understand the food aspect is not in the bill and we are looking at that from a different perspective.

Should we be looking at this in a risk management sense as to the risks involved, how those risks could be mitigated, and the cost of those risks in an economic sense? Or should we be looking at this strictly in a health protection sense to make sure that kids, parents, grandparents, in fact all consumers know that when they buy products, those products are truly safe and there are regulations to enforce that?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's first point, 65% of consumer goods sold in Canada are brought in from China. I rhymed off a list of the latest recalls of products from China, such as toxic drywall and imported jewellery.

We need to make sure that products are safe before they even enter our country. We need to protect Canadians before a product gets on the shelf. Rather than being reactive, we need legislation that is proactive. We should not let unsafe products into our country nor create products in our country or in North America that we know would hurt consumers.

I appreciate the work the hon. member has been doing on this file.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment to make with respect to my hon. colleague's comments. Natural health products, NHPs, are not included in the bill, but there is still a fear out there from some folks for whatever reason. My understanding of the purpose of the amendment is to make it crystal clear that that is not the case.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that everyone is helping to clarify the bill. We look forward to further debate on it.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this morning's debate as the former health critic and to support my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes, who is now the Bloc Québécois' health critic. He is doing an excellent job with the portfolio. I would like to read the bill's summary so that everyone listening will understand what it is about.

This enactment modernizes the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada. It creates prohibitions with respect to the manufacturing, importing, selling, advertising, packaging and labelling of consumer products, including those that are a danger to human health or safety. In addition, it establishes certain measures that will make it easier to identify whether a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety and, if so, to more effectively prevent or address the danger. It also creates application and enforcement mechanisms. This enactment also makes consequential amendments to the Hazardous Products Act.

I would like to start with a little bit of background to explain how this legislation came about. Manufacturers of dangerous products, such as cosmetics, cribs, tents and carpets, fall under federal jurisdiction. The federal government does not currently require manufacturers to test their products or prove that they are not a danger to consumer health and safety. In the summer of 2007, thousands of toys made in China were recalled by the manufacturers because they contained lead. The Bloc Québécois urged the minister to take immediate action by tightening up safety requirements for dangerous products and banning the production of dangerous products and the promotion or marketing of any product posing an unacceptable risk.

Bill C-52 was introduced when I was the health critic. It was never passed in the House of Commons because the Conservatives decided to call an election. The bill was set aside. Now we are being offered a new bill, Bill C-6, whose purpose is to ensure that people have access to safe products. People wanted Ottawa to require manufacturers to inspect their own products and to prove that they were not endangering consumers' health and safety. Other countries do not have the same level of monitoring or the same product safety standards.

In December 2007, after four months of inaction, the government finally said it would introduce a bill, sometime in early 2008, to change its strategy for regulating product safety. The newspapers ran stories about all sorts of products arriving on our store shelves, whether it is foodstuffs or products for children. These products were dangerous to the health and safety of our young children. Many family members, including grandparents, were wondering if a certain products were harmful to young children's health.

The Conservatives' inaction in this federal jurisdiction has caused growing concern among many Quebec parents about health and safety issues when buying toys. Moreover, and this shows the government's inability and inaction, in the fall of 2007, it put a survival guide for parents online, so they could ensure their children's safety. This is yet another example of this government's inaction. It could have acted and solved the issue that was being reported in all the newspapers, and also on radio and television. The bill had already been introduced when I was my party's critic on health issues. Immediately after being re-elected, the government could have proposed a bill to move forward on this issue and to reassure the public.

So we waited and, at the end of November 2007, the government brought out a personal analysis kit for consumers, so consumers themselves could make sure that consumer products are harmless.

Producing a survival guide on products that are available in stores shows how this government is not assuming its responsibilities. Indeed, this meant that it was up to consumers to ensure that a product did not present any risk. What a lack of responsibility on the part of this government!

The government had shifted to consumers the responsibility of ensuring that consumer products were safe. This meant that every parent should have a testing kit to ensure his or her child's safety. That responsibility now lay with the parent. The government also wanted consumers to be product safety watchdogs. It was utterly ridiculous to see the government shirk its responsibilities like that.

The government was off-loading the problem onto the parents and asking parents themselves to ensure that products are safe. However, it did not put any constraints—and this shows how the government shirks its responsibility—on manufacturers of potentially dangerous products, such as toys, cosmetics, cradles, tents, carpets and drugs, among others.

We called on the Minister of Health at the time to set hazardous product safety requirements. It was his duty to prohibit the manufacture, promotion and marketing of any product that could present an unacceptable danger to health. The minister needed to decide how he could enforce Canadian standards so as not to endanger consumer health and safety.

That is what I said in 2007. Now it is 2009, and we are already several months into the year. In 2006, the Auditor General at the time had made the government aware of concerns about hazardous consumer products. Moreover, when the Conservatives came to power, we had been warned about this danger, and even the managers of the program had warned this government.

The Auditor General of Canada had sounded the alarm in November 2006 and had released a particularly interesting report. Chapter 8 of her report was entitled “Allocating Funds to Regulatory Programs—Health Canada.” That chapter clearly indicated that the product safety program managers could not carry out their duties for a number of reasons.

I could list all the deficiencies the Auditor General pointed to in her report. There were consumer products, cosmetics, consumer and clinical products that emit radiation, such as lasers and sun lamps, and new substances such as fabric dyes and fuel additives that were hazardous. Speaking of fabrics, a few weeks ago, some people who purchased chairs had a severe allergic reaction to the fabric, which affected their quality of life.

As well, serious problems came to light recently in connection with products that likely came from China. We know that China and South Africa were involved. Tubes of toothpaste, something we use every day, contained harmful substances. We are very concerned these days about cancers that are often caused by the quality of the environment or products of questionable quality. We also know that some substances could have an effect on cancers.

The government did not act. Now, the government has introduced this bill. The United States also addressed this issue in 2008 and is tightening its toy safety requirements.

Legislation has been passed to provide more resources to the American agency that monitors consumer product safety.

The United States Senate passed legislation to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That was done last year, following a record number of recalls of potentially dangerous products. That legislation is called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. It increases the commission's budget—the money must be provided—and enlarges its scope.

Out of 413 different products recalled last year in the United States, 231—or a little less than half—were toys. Europe also moved forward on this. It is interesting to see that the government is now introducing a bill. It will be supported by the Bloc Québécois at second reading, so that we can go over every article with a fine tooth comb in committee. A number of witnesses will perhaps suggest certain nuances, not about the objective we wish to achieve, but about how we will achieve it.

I return to the position suggested by the Bloc Québécois. The government has been aware of the situation since 2006. We are happy to see that they are now going ahead with Bill C-6. We hope the other two opposition parties will do their best to improve this bill in committee after hearing what the various witnesses have to say.

The government has definitely been influenced by what has been written in newspapers and by the various pieces of legislation passed in other countries. Earlier I mentioned the United States and Europe. We can draw inspiration from their bills and see how certain countries have invested the necessary money. In order to conduct all the appropriate checks concerning the safety of some of the products on our shelves, we must have the necessary resources. The root of the problem must be addressed.

It is unthinkable that foreign products would not be subject to all the constraints for the manufacture of certain goods that must be met by our own retailers. They have to comply with standards. We have to be strict with products that originate abroad, where the standards are not the same. We have had to recall certain toys and products. We demanded that they be removed from our shelves and no longer be sold.

It is also our hope that, when a government is advised that a product is dangerous, that it be very proactive and that it not wait for newspapers, television or radio to bring the situation to light. The government must be transparent and should, of its own accord, contact the newspapers to tell them that such and such a product poses a health risk, in order to warn citizens against purchasing the product.

Therefore, as I was saying, we support the bill in principle and we will vote to send it to committee. We are pleased to see that the government is bringing forward this legislation. We hope that there will not be another election in the meantime and that this government will be open to the proposals of the various opposition parties. It is in a minority position and it must take that into account. Bill C-6 will not be adopted if there are early elections, in the fall for example. That could happen, for example, if this government continues to ignore the Bloc Québécois' economic recovery plan, a plan that has support across Canada.

Bill C-6, like former Bill C-52, is part of an action plan to ensure the safety of food products. The 2008 budget allocated $113 million over two years for its implementation. It remains to be seen what structure will be put in place and if the number of employees will be increased to ensure the safety of consumer products.

I will discuss a few technical aspects that this bill would implement. Clause 69 of Bill C-6 repeals Part I of the Act. At present, if a consumer good that is neither covered by regulations nor prohibited poses a risk to the safety of the population, it is up to the industry to impose a voluntary recall and manage the situation.

The federal government's powers in this respect are very limited. The new bill, Bill C-6, is aimed at creating more stringent safety requirements for hazardous products. It creates prohibitions with respect to the manufacturing, importing, selling, advertising, packaging and labelling of consumer products, including those that are a danger to human health or safety. It also aims to increase the responsibility of manufacturers and importers and to require them to ensure that their products do not represent any danger to human health or safety.

Although the responsibility of manufacturers, importers and any person selling consumer products seems more strict than before, according to clauses 7 and 8, clause 6 refers to the regulations, stating, “No person shall manufacture, import, advertise or sell a consumer product that does not meet the requirements set out in the regulations.”

Thus the tightening up of certain requirements for consumer products will be stipulated in the regulations, without the committee being able to know the direction they will take.

Very often we find bills filled with great principles, but here we have no debates about the regulations. That is the responsibility of the public servants, whom I respect a great deal. It will not be up to parliamentarians to draft the body of regulations, to monitor what goes into the regulations, and to find solutions to achieve the objective.

There are a number of definitions in the bill, and I quote:

“consumer product” means a product, including its components, parts or accessories, that may reasonably be expected to be obtained by an individual to be used for non-commercial purposes, including for domestic, recreational and sports purposes, and includes its packaging.

This is good, because the product may be safe, but its packaging may not be.

The bill also covers:

(b) anything used in the manufacturing, importation, packaging, storing, advertising, selling, labelling, testing or transportation of a consumer product;

(c) a document that is related to any of those activities or a consumer product.

The bill contains five measures with the intent of reversing the burden of proof with respect to the safety of consumer products. At present, as I said already, there is no constraint whatsoever imposed upon manufacturers or importers. They do not have to demonstrate that their products pose no danger or threat to consumer safety.

Bill C-6 proposes to reverse this burden of proof and to impose it on manufacturers in future. I think this is a step in the right direction. It also suggests that manufacturers and importers of consumer products will be required to test their products for safety on a regular basis and, significantly, to disclose the results of these tests.

That is important because a manufacturer or seller could claim that his product is just fine even if he were aware of problems with the materials in the product or its safety. It would be his responsibility to disclose test results. Currently, the burden of proof is the opposite. This bill would require companies to reveal any issues or illnesses caused by their products, regardless of where they were made. That is good, because right now, the toxic effects of certain products remain undisclosed.

This is a far cry from the survival guide and the government's suggestion that parents should be responsible for product safety. Giving that responsibility to manufacturers and importers is a step in the right direction. It is a good idea, and the Bloc supports this initiative. Once again, this is good news. It remains to be seen how the government goes about giving inspectors greater authority. I introduced a bill today to make people feel safer by requiring a durable life date on food packaging.

These days, whenever people buy food and other products, they often wonder if what they have purchased is safe. Even some pharmaceutical products sold in pharmacies do not have a durable life date. After two years, such products could be dangerous, could contain bacteria or could be toxic to humans. Giving inspectors greater authority is therefore—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member’s time has unfortunately expired.

The hon. member for Mississauga-South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to work with the hon. member on the health committee in a number of areas.

My question has to do with the natural health products issue and former Bill C-51. In the last Parliament there were companion bills, Bill C-51 and Bill C-52. Bill C-6 is the replacement for Bill C-52, but there were companion bills in the last Parliament, and now the natural health products industry and the users of natural health products are expressing some concern.

It would appear there are some implications with regard to natural health products in the current bill or they will be coming forward. I am a little confused. The member may have some insight as to whether another bill will be coming along, which would make it a little difficult to fit into the regime set up under former Bill C-52. I would have thought there would be some clarity with regard to the applicability of Bill C-6 to Bill C-52 on the natural health products issue.

I wonder if the member has some concerns or if her constituents have expressed concerns about the regulatory framework being proposed with regard to health products.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I no longer sit on the Standing Committee on Health, this is certainly one of our concerns regarding natural products. As my Liberal Party colleague said, if there are negative consequences or a negative impact on monitoring the safety of certain natural products, that will be decided in committee. I am sure that my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes who now sits on that committee will call witnesses who will explain things.

In fact, this bill is being debated today at second reading so it can be sent to a committee where we will hear from witnesses who can explain the various facets and frustrations of the bill, which could then be improved. We can say, however, that many principles have been proposed today with which the Bloc Québécois agrees. We will have to see how it is done, however. There is also the question of the regulations, which I mentioned earlier, in which we will have no voice.

For the moment, therefore, I understand my colleague’s sensitivity about natural products and I am sure that my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes will be very alert to the concerns raised.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way made some very good points.

As my colleague knows, Canada's consumer product legislation is 40 years old and has fallen behind other jurisdictions. Bill C-6 will empower Canadians to make safer choices. It will provide the tools we need to act swiftly to help protect Canadians. It will also level the playing field for reputable companies.

I would ask my esteemed colleague across the way, what are some very important aspects that are of particular interest to her in terms of Bill C-6 that she thinks would be very beneficial if they were added?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I no longer sit on the Standing Committee on Health, I was always concerned about this. The member asking the question was the chair of our committee and she is well aware of how concerned I was about this entire issue. We developed an openness and an approach to achieve certain objectives to ensure the safety of the products on our shelves. For example, we want to give more powers to inspectors and make sure that the burden of proof is on the manufacturers or retailers so that they are responsible for the products they sell. This is an important principle that the Bloc Québécois was calling for.

I am very happy to see that we will be able to pursue these questions in detail in the clause by clause study of the bill in committee. If the bill is well put together overall, given that there are many aspects to this bill, I am sure that the witnesses will be able to explain things. I hope the government will accept the amendments. A bill is never perfect. That is why it is discussed in committee. We do hope this government will be open to amending certain clauses in the bill. I am sure that our former chair on the committee will be open to that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. members to subclause 36(1) of the bill, entitled “Regulations”. Much of my speech will relate to my concerns about this item. This subclause says that the cabinet, the government, can exempt, “with or without conditions, a consumer product or class of consumer products from the application of this Act”, and it goes on.

Think about it. The government can, through cabinet decision, exempt or not exempt, with or without conditions, any product or class. That is a concern to me because it is so broad and so fundamental. How would anyone understand the scope or intent of this bill unless they knew what was covered? To me, this is a serious flaw in the bill and I hope the committee is going to look at it.

However, let me put on the record some of my thoughts with regard to the bill overall. First, as we know, Bill C-6 is the latest effort with regard to a bill from the last Parliament: Bill C-52. Bill C-52 had a companion bill, Bill C-51, which had to do with natural health products. I know hon. members learned an awful lot about that from the lobby and their constituents, because there are millions of people who rely on the availability of natural health products. Their argument is not whether there are proven health benefits; the fact is that they want the choice, they are comfortable with it, and as long as those products are safe they should be available.

So I am rising to remind all the nice people who have written to me over the last months and in the last Parliament and asked me to help in doing something about this that I am going to stay involved in this bill. I will support it to go to committee. However, I do want to make it crystal clear to all Canadians that there will be no implications with regard to natural health products in regard to Bill C-6. I expect there is going to be another bill coming to deal with natural health products, to the extent that there were two companion bills in the last Parliament. I certainly do expect that to happen and we will have to be very vigilant at that time.

Bill C-6, respecting the safety of consumer products, is referred to as the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Thus, members will often be referring to it as the CCPSA. It is very similar to Bill C-52 from the last Parliament. Bill C-52 did pass at second reading and was referred to committee. However, it died on the order paper because of the dissolution of Parliament and the call of the 40th general election.

To remind members of what Bill C-6 is doing, it is repealing and replacing part I of the current Hazardous Products Act. It is creating a new system to regulate consumer products that pose or might reasonably be expected to pose a danger to human health and safety. I do not think anybody is going to argue about the necessity.

Specifically, the bill has a number of key impacts. First, it prohibits the sale, manufacture, import and advertising of certain listed products and provides for testing and evaluation of consumer products. Second, it makes it mandatory for manufacturers, importers and sellers of consumer products to report dangerous incidents associated with these products to the Minister of Health. It also obliges manufacturers, importers and sellers of consumer products to report product or labelling defects that result, might result, or are reasonably expected to result in death or serious adverse health impacts, including serious injury, and report that to the Minister of Health.

It requires the same group to report recalls of consumer products initiated by governments and government institutions in Canada or elsewhere to the Minister of Health. It provides for the inspection and seizure of consumer products for the purpose of verifying compliance or non-compliance with the bill's provisions.

It empowers the federal government to institute interim and permanent recalls of products that pose or might reasonably be expected to pose a danger to human health and safety, and it establishes both criminal and administrative penalties for those who violate the CCPSA or orders made under it.

Under the current act, the Hazardous Products Act, if a consumer product that is not regulated or prohibited poses a health or safety risk, it is up to the industry to voluntarily issue and manage a product recall. So it is a voluntary system of sorts. It is not as robust, obviously, as Bill C-6 is proposing to be. The federal government is limited to issuing only a public warning in that regard under the current legislation.

Obviously this is a very serious step, given the changes in the way that products move, the technology, and their production and distribution. This is basically a bill to modernize our approach to product safety.

To give members an idea in terms of these voluntary product recalls, in 2006, there were 32 product recalls; and in 2007, there were 90. The number went up to 165 recalls in 2008, and 27 recalls already in 2009.

So the number of product recalls by even the manufacturers or distributors of these has been going up. Clearly it is urgent that the bill be dealt with expeditiously. There are problems out there. There is a risk posed to Canadians, and I know all hon. members will want to work diligently to make sure that Bill C-6 gets urgent attention at the rest of its stages.

This bill and the former bill, Bill C-51, was described as having a three-pronged approach to food, health and consumer safety. I do not have any specific comments to make on the approach. I think the approach is sound.

That said, I do have some concerns with regard to the regulations. For a long time I have been a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, between the House of Commons and the Senate. By way of background, the committee has a mandate to ensure that regulations made to statutes after they are passed by Parliament have been properly enabled in the legislation.

The reason we want to review that is that there is a history of where governments, and they refer to order in council but that is basically cabinet, where cabinet makes regulations that do much more than was contemplated in the bill or requested or required by the bill. It is referred to often as being backdoor legislation. It is where we do not see it.

In the bill that is before us, members will see in clause 36, the clause that I referred to concerning the regulations, 16 paragraphs listed that require regulations to be made.

When we have a bill to deal with, we know the areas in which regulations may be promulgated by the government, drafted, gazetted and issued. In our case, we operate under the presumption that the full intent of the bill is transparent in the bill itself and that nothing happening after that will change our understanding of what the bill really wanted to do.

We have to rely on that because at the end of second reading, we are going to have a vote to approve this bill in principle, which will pretty well lock in what the bill is intended to do. At committee, members may fix some errors and fine-tune the bill here and there, and perhaps do a few other things. We will be able to move report stage motions later, but at second reading, we are going to approve it in principle. The bill will go to committee and we will do some fine tuning and hear from the experts to see if there is a problem. As long as there is no major fundamental problem in the understanding of the bill or no errors have occurred, the bill is going to pass at committee. It is going to pass at report stage. It is going to pass at third reading. It is going to go to the other place where it will go through a very similar process. Then the bill is going to get royal assent, but it is not going to be proclaimed until the regulations are drafted, gazetted and promulgated. We will not even see the regulations until after the bill gets royal assent and we will not be able to do anything with it.

That is why the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations exists. There has to be a mechanism in which we can look at the regulations once they come out to ensure they are properly enabled in the legislation and that they are not doing things beyond what would reasonably be contemplated in the bill.

I started off my speech and read clause 36(1)(a), which basically says that the government, the cabinet, may make regulations exempting, with or without conditions, a consumer product or class of consumer products from the application of this act. It gives extraordinary power to the cabinet about what is in and what is not. It poses an extraordinary risk because now it is cabinet members, who may be lobbied not to put an item in there, who can say they are out.

I would much prefer, and I know there are precedents in other legislation, that it state that these are the things that are there and these are the things that are not there. We have seen it, for instance, in the reproductive technologies legislation. There was a royal commission on reproductive technologies I think 15 years ago. We passed a bill at all stages in 2004 I think it was. We were told at the time it was going to take about two years to draft the regulations and for them to be put in place, gazetted and promulgated.

I said earlier that it is extremely important, given the product recalls, that there be some velocity to this bill. I do not see that there is a sense of urgency. I do see there are 16 areas in which regulations have to be drafted. These will not be drafted probably until after the bill goes through all stages. Even then there is no obligation for any scrutiny before those regulations are done and issued. That concerns me because another important act, the reproductive technologies act, also had many regulations to be made. We were told it was going to take two years. On top of that, the health committee got the concession that all of those regulations must be passed by the health committee. It was important to ensure there was not any backdoor legislation being made, that the intent of the bill was not modified substantively through regulations which would not be caught by the scrutiny regulations committee until after there was a complaint or we did a review of them which may be too late.

I am very concerned about the velocity of the bill. I am concerned about the fact that there are so many regulations here. I am concerned that even the first one tells me there maybe is going to be too much discretion by order in council or by the cabinet, i.e. the government, unilaterally to say what is not included. It puts a lot of risk and onus there and I do not know whether or not that can be dealt with.

People have been asking me about the health products aspect and, because there is no companion bill, whether there is something in this bill. In fact, there is.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health responded to a question expressing that concern. I might as well read the response into the record. This was at the beginning of second reading. He said:

In the original writing of the bill and in the past version, Bill C-52, there was some confusion in the language and stakeholders from the natural health products community required some clarification of it. The minister has written--

I want to emphasize this. The parliamentary secretary said:

The minister has written to the chair of the health committee. We will be putting forward an amendment to clarify that exactly so that the stakeholders from the natural health products community know that this bill excludes natural health products and food and drugs under the Food and Drugs Act.

It basically says that the Minister of Health has written to the chair of the health committee to give notice that a little change is going to be made to say that natural health products are excluded from the bill. That is wonderful, but we have a regulation. The regulation says that the governor in council may exempt, and I stress the word “may”.

What kind of amendment is the parliamentary secretary referring to? Are we going to say that now the bill is going to include some sort of a clause providing a specific amendment for natural health products and then everything else is going to be subject to a cabinet decision about exemptions? Some classes are obvious on their face. It should be in the bill. If the case is that they are going to say that regulation 36(1)(a) is where we will give the exemption, but it is not specifically in the bill, we will never know. How long is this going to take? How long is it going to take before those regulations are drafted? How long is it going to take before they are gazetted and promulgated and they become part of the law and the provisions in the bill become law?

If the reproductive technologies legislation is any indication, it could be months or maybe years. We are already four years past the drafting stage of regulations on the reproductive technologies legislation.

This causes me concern. I have seen this time and time again from Health Canada. Health Canada has a track record of patterning these bills in the way it wants to handle them, in a way which allows it a lot of latitude to change things or to move forward with things, or in fact to delay things.

I can say right now that the fact that those 200 regulations on reproductive technologies have not been drafted and presented to the health committee yet, a bill which received royal assent back in 2004, means that all of those provisions, all of the work and all of the things that we were doing in the areas that require regulations are not in force right now. They are not the law. In other words, all of the things that we approved and we accepted in Parliament to be the law of Canada are not the law of Canada today, four or five years later, because the regulations have not been done. What does that mean? It reverts to the law and continues as it was.

In that particular case, it is the Canadian Institutes of Health Research that unilaterally decides what is going to happen on reproductive technologies, about sperm donations, about the buying and selling of gametes and the like. What is even worse is that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is not even subject to parliamentary review. It is the largest organization of the Government of Canada that provides funding for research. It is the one that decides and it is not even subject to any review by the Parliament of Canada.

I know this because I put forward a report stage motion to put in the bill that created the CIHR that it be subject to a three year review so that parliamentarians knew what the CIHR was doing and could ask its officials questions about how they were doing it and make sure they did not have pet projects, which is the reason the CIHR was created in the first place. The body it was replacing was found to have some problems. There was too much bias within the system. It is going to happen again.

I hope I have raised some questions. I want to encourage members of the committee certainly not to just listen. I do not know why the health minister is writing to the chair of a committee before second reading is over. I am not sure why the government did not anticipate that the health product industry was going to have some problems with the legislation. We have some things to correct but I want those things to be corrected quickly. I want the bill to be dealt with quickly because the health and safety of Canadians is at stake.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague showed a lot of insight in his comments and suggestions on Bill C-6. It is an extremely important and timely bill.

I thank the member for pointing out that natural products are exempt from this bill and are not part of what we are considering. However, as my colleague knows, there are very big considerations in terms of cribs, toys and other products that have to be addressed. I felt that his experience and concerns in this area contributed much to this morning's discussion.

With all the issues that were brought up, particularly regarding the regulations and some aspects which the member feels are missing from the bill, in a very short time could the member please inform the House what he thinks would be very prudent and necessary to add to the bill in the form of an amendment or in the form of an idea around his comments this morning?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill should be reviewed to ensure that it includes all the clarity necessary in the body of the bill itself, rather than leaving it to the regulations.

There should be a requirement that the regulations come before the health committee. The committee should see the draft regulations to be absolutely sure. If the committee is overly cautious or concerned about the regulations, it should require that the government permit the committee to suggest changes to the draft regulations. On the reproductive technologies legislation, we could make comment but propose no changes. The current bill is important enough, and people and stakeholders are going to be engaged enough, that we should make sure that absolutely everybody is comfortable that the intent of the bill is being delivered.

Finally, I would ask the minister and the officials from Health Canada to provide to the committee a report on the status of the drafting of the regulations at this point. If they have not started yet, then they are not serious, because we had the same bill in the last Parliament. If they think they are not going to start doing their work until after the bill gets royal assent, that is unacceptable. If they are serious about it, they should show us the draft regulations now.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the member that we should see the regulations. We should tie the government down as much as possible, because Conservatives are not known for bringing in tough regulations when it comes to business. I would not trust them too far on this issue. That is why I would like to see strong measures put in the bill. Most of the regulations they would like to put in I would like to see in the bill from the very beginning.

There is one area we should probably look at, and I ask the member for his opinion. Perhaps in deciding whether a danger to health or safety exists, the legislation should require that the government consider the release of harmful substances from products during use or after disposal, including house dust and indoor air, the potential harm from chronic exposure to the substance, the potential for harm to vulnerable populations, the cumulative exposure to a substance Canadians receive from the products of concern and other environmental exposures, and the last one is the substitution principle and whether safe substitutes would exist for certain products.

I wonder if the member has any comments about these as possible additions to this bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, my first-blush reaction would be that the member may have gone beyond the scope of the current bill and it would gut the bill.

Having said that, I want to reiterate one point. In that last Parliament, Bill C-51 dealt with natural health products. That bill was in the middle of second reading. It came out that the minister had written to the chair of the health committee indicating there were going to be some changes proposed to address the concerns of the natural health products industry.

My argument at the time, which remains today, is that at committee substantive changes cannot be made to legislation that has received passage at second reading. If there is anything like that being contemplated right now, I would ask the chair of the health committee that if such a letter is written with regard to this or any other bill, that the chair send it back to the minister with instructions to withdraw the bill and reissue it, or indicate another manner in which to amend or correct the bill, because it cannot be done at committee.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we have to get the bill through quickly to protect the safety of Canadians. Also, I have received a lot of feedback from the natural food products people, so I will be watching that very closely.

However, in regard to regulations I also have a constituent, Mr. Fekady, who constantly reminds me that we should not govern by regulations. Because they are outside Parliament, regulations should be more minor in nature. It seems to me that if there are powerful interests, a regulation that could exempt some major class of products from a bill is fairly major, that might want the scrutiny of Parliament. As the member knows, the scrutiny of regulations committee cannot deal with policy or change a bill.

The other issue I would like the member to comment on is the safety of Canadians and the disastrous results we have had from the government in relation to inspections, taking meat inspectors off the floor to do desk audits related to listeriosis-type of potential that people are very worried about, and putting forward a bill that would reduce the grain inspectors. People can get very sick from diseases in the grain that comes from wheat.

I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on any of those items.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the hon. member for Yukon who is a tireless worker in the House on a broad range of issues.

The member has identified that there is some breadth and some detail. The two keys for members who are not on the committee, who are not going to get totally engaged, would be twofold. First, is to find out if regulations are required to a bill and if so, how many and if there are a whole bunch, start asking questions about why they are not in the bill, why do we need these, because there is a purpose for regulations.

If it says in the Income Tax Act that tools qualify for the tax credit, the regulation would list the tools, but it does not change the fact that tools get a credit. That is a simple example of a right.

The other area I would look at would be the definitions in the bill. If a definition includes a list of anything, the red light has to go on because if there is a list, something must be left out. I would refer members to the definition of what is a consumer product. I think we will find very little clarity in the bill and it may have to be looked at.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation and I am happy we are having a thorough debate in the House. While I appreciate the urgency of the situation, I also believe, as my colleagues do, that we have to get it right this time around.

Addressing this debate in the middle of an outbreak of an influenza that is circling the globe gives us reason to pause and consider the impact of legislation like this in all of its ramifications. The swine influenza reminds us just how much we live in a global context and that an incident in one part of this world can never remain isolated and contained completely. Because of travel around this globe and the way in which people are able to move around so quickly, it is clear that what we do in one part of the country, one part of the world, can affect people all around the globe.

The swine influenza incident also reminds us just how interconnected everything is. Human health directly connected to animal health, directly connected to the health of our environment. We cannot separate them. We have to look at them as a package and understand just how much government is responsible for protecting health based on that kind of global situation in the way in which everything is so connected.

I have mentioned the swine influenza and although it is not specifically related to Bill C-6 I think the Government of Canada has learned the lessons that we all experienced following the SARS outbreak and has put in place a proactive, precautionary approach to containing and mitigating in the case of the swine influenza.

I have said so publicly and I want to say so again now. I commend the Minister of Health for being so forthright with Canadian people and for ensuring that all members of Parliament are in the loop. We have had regular briefings on a daily basis. Members of Parliament will have opportunity to be briefly regularly as well. The members of the Public Health Agency of Canada and the virology lab located in Winnipeg have given up some of their valuable time to ensure that we are aware of all the facts.

I just want to give credit where credit is due because it is so important for Canadians to know that we do work together on a non-partisan basis. There are times when we disagree, but when something as serious as the swine influenza starts to circle the globe and the numbers increase daily, we have to acknowledge when government is acting appropriately, and we have to reiterate the fact that all of us are concerned and vigilant. We will continue to monitor the situation and provide the necessary information to our constituents and Canadians everywhere.

The other issue, of course, that has grabbed our attention recently that has connections to this bill is the question of listeriosis and the contamination of our food. Although this bill does not deal with food, the principle we are applying, whether it is in terms of food, drugs, natural health products or consumer products, is the same. The principle is that in fact products should be allowed on the markets, on the shelves in our stores, when they are proven to be safe.

That is a fundamental notion that is entrenched in the old legislation that we are now updating. The old legislation of the Hazardous Products Act and the old Food and Drugs Act are pieces of legislation that over the years have tried to embody the principle of do no harm, to say that it is the job of government and it is a responsibility that is enclosed within the Criminal Code because a dereliction of duty is seen as a criminal abrogation or a criminal offence.

It is that do no harm principle that requires government to ensure that all programs and measures are in place so that the products on the market, whether it is the food we eat, the drugs we have to take because of a particular illness or chronic disease, or the products that we buy for household use or for our enjoyment, are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is true that the bill we are now dealing with updates legislation that is 40 years old. It is time to modernize that legislation. It is time to bring our current laws into the 21st century to ensure that we are prepared for today and for many decades to come.

By all accounts, this legislation would make some significant improvements. There are parts to the bill that are overdue and many Canadians have been clamouring for changes for many years. I commend the government for bringing forward some changes and some important legislative provisions that would help ensure the safety of Canadians.

I want to say very clearly that the bill is far from perfect and I am not even looking for perfect today. I am looking for a bill that would hold us in good stead for many years to come.

It has been acknowledged by Canadians and organizations involved in the area of environmental health and product safety that the bill takes important steps, but it is far from the kind of legislation we think is necessary for this day and age. I want to put that clearly on the record.

We are prepared to see the bill go to committee for further discussion, but we are not happy with the bill as it now exists. We have many concerns and we will be proposing some amendments that we hope the government will look at seriously.

We have been talking this morning about one area that pertains to natural health products. It has been pointed out that the minister has taken the unusual step of sending a letter to our committee indicating that there will be an amendment to Bill C-6 that would separate out natural health products from any aspect of this legislation. That is fine and good, and I know that the member for Mississauga South has raised some concerns about that whole process.

However, I think it is the government's way of trying to catch up to a rather messy situation that it still has not quite sorted through, and that is the whole melding and meshing of natural health products into both the legislation pertaining to consumer products and the legislation pertaining to food and drugs.

The furor that erupted after the introduction of Bill C-51 and Bill C-52 last year was a result of the fact that the government failed to consider the need to clearly differentiate natural health products from current drug legislation, and by implication, from other legislation that actually puts in place recalls, bans and prohibitions.

After many years of debate, it is clear that Canadians have accepted the fact that natural health products are a separate category from food and drugs, but there are some groups that would still prefer natural products to be part of food and to be faced with minimal regulation. Our view is that natural products have to be accessible to Canadians, but they have to be safe as well. We are not prepared to minimize safety requirements in order to speed up accessibility.

However, we believe that the previous Liberal government and the present Conservative government have failed to ensure a proper regulatory system for natural health products that would speed up the licensing of those products and would ensure that any concerns about false advertising or altered products or side effects with foods and drugs are taken into account.

We are anxious to see the government speed up the whole process around natural health products regulatory procedures to take away that concern from Canadians, so that they have faith and confidence that the government is not putting up any unnecessary roadblocks in terms of access to those products. There have been some signs that this is happening.

It is important that the bill be amended to exclude any reference to natural health products just as we anticipated that Bill C-51 would do as well.

Whenever the government brings forward new legislation that deals with food and drugs, we expect that it will have learned the lessons of the past sorry chapter of history, when Canadians had to rally in the thousands, when they had to send hundreds of thousands of signatures in petitions and call and fax members of Parliament on a regular basis. We hope the government has learned from this and will realize that, under no circumstances, should natural health products be lumped in with pharmaceuticals and put through the same kinds of requirements. There has to be a separate category with its own unique set of regulations.

This keeps coming up in debate because we are looking for the government to give us an agenda. How will it deal with natural health products? Will there be a report to Parliament about the licensing process and how it is changing? Will there be legislation that regulates this area so it is not lumped in with either consumer products or drugs? That would be in the best interest of Canadians.

As members know, we all continue to receive mail from people concerned about natural health products and accessibility to them with respect to Bill C-6. The sooner we can clear up this matter, the better. My view is we should have a system in place that deals with the backlog and ensures there is a separate regulatory framework, with provisions for safety and product authenticity built into that process.

It is important to focus on the major parts of the bill that ensure consumer products are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. At least that is my assumption. This is why I am somewhat critical of the bill. I do not believe the precautionary principle is deeply rooted and entrenched in the bill.

My view is that while the bill has very strong recall provisions and all groups have acknowledged this, it begs this question. What happens before a product is recalled? How many people have to get sick? What steps are being taken by the government to ensure consumers are aware of any problems with a product and if there is a serious toxic substance in a product, that the product is taken completely off the market?

The bill may require recalls and prohibit some products being on the market, but there is nothing that requires the minister and the government to inform the public the minute there is a suspicion that a product could be hazardous to one's health. We leave products on the market until someone gets sick, then we act. Is that not backwards?

Should we not try to ensure that products on the market are safe beyond a reasonable doubt? Should we not therefore ensure that the proper analysis, inspection and enforcement of regulations are done to make that happen? Why do we wait for people to get sick or die before we act? I am afraid the bill reinforces that notion. Products are recalled after something horrible happens and that does not give Canadians confidence.

The other problem in terms of recall that is without teeth is the principle of a right to know is not entrenched in this bill. If the government is reluctant to prohibit, or ban or recall on a very stringent basis, then at least it must ensure that the principle of right to know is built into the bill, and I do not see it.

I do not see a requirement for labelling in every instance. I do not see the recommendations by the Cancer Society being taken into account. I do not see the private member's bill proposed by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster being included in this legislation. This would ensure, as a bare minimum, that Canadians would know a product may have ingredients that are toxic and dangerous to the health and well-being of humans.

We see examples of this every day. Look at bisphenol A. It is a substance that has been identified as being harmful to human hormones, reproductive capacity and the development of children. There is a clear link between bisphenol A and very serious health concerns. Yet the government has approached it on a hit and miss basis. Baby bottles were banned because it was believed they would be cleaned with scalding water, which would bring out the toxic substance that would cause problems to the health of humans.

However, we allow it in pop and fruit juice cans because the government says that people have to drink 900 cans of pop a year before they will be exposed. This does not take into account that some kids drink a lot of soft drinks. It also does not take into account that it is a cumulative effect. What about the fact that there is a little bisphenol A in this product or that product to which one is exposed? Eventually, it accumulates and causes a serious problem.

In that instance, should we not follow the do no harm principle? Should we not say that we know the links? Why not take the action? Why does the Minister of Health stand in the House and say that the government does not have all the evidence of a direct link between the amount in these pop cans and human health? Canadians want their government to be firm and tough when there is that kind of knowledge and understanding.

This is why so many groups, from the Cancer Society to the Environmental Defence league to the David Suzuki Foundation, have all recommended that the bill do a much better job in not just prohibiting a product because it, as a whole, is dangerous, but also because there are environmental toxins in the product that are on a list under CEPA as being dangerous and could possibly cause human health problems. Why not prohibit those kinds of dangerous toxins? Why not go the extra route of saying that if there is a possibility of danger to human health, we are going to take some actions?

The government does not have to worry so much about industry getting up in arms because industry adapts. When the government banned baby bottles made out of bisphenol A, the industry came up with another product that was safe. If the government would ban pop cans that use bisphenol A, the industry would come up with another option that would be safe. In fact, we would have a double whammy out of this. First, we would be taking extra precaution to ensure human health and safety. Second, we could be spurring a new made in Canada industry that would create jobs, that would be based on the green economy and that would help Canadians from the point of view of both their future health and the future of this planet.

Think about the government having the gumption, guts and courage to do something about the products we know are dangerous and could be prohibited from store shelves. The bill does not do that. However, I hope the government will listen to some very serious amendments as proposed by some of the organizations I have mentioned and that will be proposed by us at committee. I hope they will be taken seriously.

If the government cannot accept that notion, I would hope it would at least agree with the question about labelling and the need to ensure these toxic substances and potentially dangerous ingredients are clearly labelled on all such packages. Surely, we can start to use the skull and crossbones on a regular basis whenever there is scientific evidence of a particular ingredient causing harm to human health and well-being. Surely, we can do that much.

Before my time runs out, let me get to a couple of other issues. One of them is with respect to tobacco. We cannot accept a bill that includes the permanent exclusion for tobacco products. We do not believe tobacco products should be exempted from any of the provisions of the bill. We know there is other legislation dealing with tobacco, but there is nothing wrong with ensuring it is protected at all ends. It must be included in Bill C-6, and we will make that amendment.

Finally, we have come some distance, but we have a long way to go to make this ideal legislation. We do not simply want to get us up to 2009. I do not think the bill even gets us up to that level. We have made some distance from 1969, but we have not put in place the right kind of legislation or the laws that will ensure human health is put first beyond all profit and commercial interests. That is the objective and role of government and that is the work of our health committee in the weeks and months ahead.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North is on the health committee. She does an extremely good job and contributes in a very meaningful way to the committee.

I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North for her compliments of the Minister of Health and how she is handling the swine flu concern. I commend the health committee on its insightful suggestions. It has been keeping up to speed on all the things going on underneath that aspect. I also have to commend the member for her interest and her insightful suggestions on Bill C-6.

I have to emphasize the fact that Bill C-6 has nothing to do with natural health products. The member did mention that, but a lot of her speech had to do with those products.

Her opinions are very valued and very insightful on committee. What would the member for Winnipeg North suggest would be one of the most helpful things to include in Bill C-6 in terms of the amendments to ensure that we get the bill out in a timely manner, which the member has acknowledged is important? What could we do to ensure the health and safety of Canadians around products? What could we put in place to ensure that the bill is very substantial?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the chair of our health committee. We think the following amendments are pretty fundamental to the bill and some variation on them needs to be made for our support of the bill.

The first is to get rid of the exclusion of tobacco from the requirements of the bill. Let us not go down that path. Let us cover off tobacco everywhere we can because it is so harmful to health and well-being.

Second, let us ensure we have some way to prohibit categories of toxic substances in the bill. The member for Mississauga South, in answer to my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, suggested this was not part of Bill C-6, or the general parameters of Bill C-6, and I disagree.

If we are to look at consumer safety, we have to look at not just total products, but categories of toxic substances and ensure that internationally recognized carcinogens, reproductive toxicants and neuro-developmental toxicants are prohibited in products on the shelves today. We should find a way to ensure the legislation triggers restrictions on substances assessed as toxic under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We should require the minister to notify the public of any reported incidents and recall orders.

Members will notice that the difference between Bill C-52 and Bill C-6, at least in one instance, is the duty for the minister to disclose to the public has been removed. I find that quite disturbing. I hope it is put back in, with more teeth, so the minister is obligated to inform Canadians whenever a problem is identified and give them appropriate information.

I remember an incident in the House, when we asked about lead in lipsticks. It was already identified. What was interesting was the government admitted there was a problem, but when we went to the website, we could not find the names of the products, so consumers themselves could not even take charge of the issue and decide to purchase on a discretionary or a careful basis.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made an excellent presentation. I want to ask her a question regarding amendments and the question of the use of counterfeit approval labels, which are also primarily associated with offshore problem. That has not been dealt with in the bill.

We constantly see counterfeit labels in our country. People go into stores, buy very cheap products and find out later that the labels on those products are counterfeit. What would the member say about that issue?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the groups that I mentioned that are working so hard on trying to improve this legislation, I should mention the United Steelworkers of Canada. It has been very vigilant in identifying dangerous products coming into this country. In fact, it has helped us over the last number of months and years to identify some 90 products that have come into this country that contained dangerous components, such as lead in toys.

Equally important is the question of labelling. Fraudulent labelling of products must be prohibited in this legislation and we will be taking every step possible to ensure that is part of this bill.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-6, previously known as Bill C-52, which was introduced in April 2008 and was read for the second time in May 2008. I hope it will get through all the stages this time and that the Bloc Québécois will have an opportunity in committee to make some comments or changes in order to clarify certain things in the preamble to the bill and get answers to some questions we have about the application of the law.

This bill is part of an action plan to ensure the safety of consumer products and foods. The government announced this action plan in 2007, and the 2008 budget mentioned it and earmarked $113 million over two years to implement it. What we want to see now is the framework that will be established, that is to say, whether the number of employees will increase to ensure the safety of consumer products. I will explain why.

The current legislation goes back 40 years and the government wants to modernize the way in which consumer product safety is handled. The main piece of federal legislation on consumer product safety is currently the Hazardous Products Act, which was enacted in 1969. This bill is designed to repeal and replace Part I of that act.

Are the bill’s provisions adequate? Will adequate budgets be provided to implement it? I wonder. The bill regulates products that pose a health or safety risk. At present, it is up to industry to voluntarily issue and manage a product recall. The federal government’s authority in this regard is limited to issuing a public warning and, in the event that it is deemed necessary, subsequently taking steps to regulate or prohibit the product under the Hazardous Products Act. This information is taken from the legislative summary on Bill C-52 that the Library of Parliament has provided.

Bill C-6 seems to tighten the safety requirements for hazardous products. Clauses 7 and 8 spell out the precautions that must be taken, the responsibilities of manufacturers and importers, and their obligation to ensure that their products do not pose a danger to human health or safety. However, even though the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and any person who sells consumer products appear to be thoroughly covered in clauses 7 and 8, the fact that there is a reference to clause 6 and to some regulatory requirements leads us to think that the provisions of the bill may not be adequate.

We have seen how regulations have been used in practice in the case of immigration and citizenship. When the government does not necessarily want to act quickly, the process can take a tremendous amount of time and put undue pressure on industry, which does not know what the rules will be and what safeguards will be expected of it. The way in which the bill is worded also confers a lot of discretionary power on the minister’s office. These are my concerns about the bill. It also does not specify when the regulations will come into force.

Natural health products are not covered by this bill. Will we have the same problems as the natural health products industry since the creation of the Natural Health Products Directorate at Health Canada? I have some examples. Two companies in my riding are in a difficult situation. They manufacture products that were licensed by the directorate and have a natural product number.

When a product is licensed by Health Canada, there should not be barriers to its export.In this case, Health Canada did not act fast enough or efficiently and forgot that dairy-based natural health products first require inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Today, because Health Canada's Natural Health Products Directorate did not foresee that this document was required, these companies are having difficulty exporting their products.

In my opinion, in a difficult economic context, our structures should not hinder the initiatives of companies that are growing. Exports are jeopardized because of the inability to issue a health certificate for a dairy-based natural health product.

I am emphasizing this point because this bill on the safety of consumer goods could be more harmful than helpful if it is not implemented quickly, efficiently and with all the necessary resources.

I sincerely hope that this situation, which is so devastating for the economy of my region of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, will be resolved. Businesses should not lose a competitive advantage because provisions are missing or inadequate to support new federal regulations.

The bill contains five types of measures designed to strengthen the burden of proof with regard to safety: measures on consumer product safety; measures to give inspectors greater authority; a new power for the minister to recall products; more severe penalties; and product traceability.

Clauses 13 and 14 of the bill seem to indicate that the government is proposing to introduce a record-keeping system that is similar to a product traceability system. We still have questions about this bill and the direction it takes.

As I said, the preamble to the bill proposes a definition that approaches the precautionary principle. It reads as follows:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that a lack of full scientific certainty is not to be used as a reason for postponing measures that prevent adverse effects on human health if those effects could be serious or irreversible;

We would like to be able to analyze this statement in more detail in committee and get a better understanding of the guidelines and conditions behind the bill, as well as what the government intends by this statement.

The preamble also refers to connections between consumer products and the environment. We would like to ask the government whether it plans to include environmental requirements in the regulations. Seeing as how the bill makes no mention of this and the regulations will not be submitted to the committee, we would like to know what the government plans to do in this regard.

Moreover, we believe that industry self-regulation poses a problem. I refer to an article by Stéphanie Bérubé in La Presse in April 2008, entitled “Is your food safe?” The article said that as of April 1, 2008, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was inspecting barely 2% to 5% of foods and that this small percentage accounted for nearly 98% of the risks.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on which I sit, receives reports from the Auditor General on other similar issues involving Health Canada. Products come into the country but are not inspected. As well, Health Canada lacks resources, has a heavy bureaucracy and uses some questionable mechanisms when it comes to product safety inspection and analysis.

In today's technological age, Health Canada does not always use electronic means, but often uses fax machines. So I am concerned about the implementation of all this, as well as the debates on regulation and the provisions of the act that give the minister's office considerable powers to exclude certain industries. Earlier my colleague mentioned an industry that is excluded from the legislation at this time. There are also plans to deal with natural products in another bill. As I was saying, some businesses are already having problems because of the legislative framework in place. Those problems have been exacerbated by the economic crisis, Health Canada's operating problems and its inability to rapidly respond to the questions posed by people who export our products. The situation is terrible and the risk is increased as a result.

The people watching us need to know that the existing legislation is outdated. It no longer reflects how trade works or the importance of consumer product safety. This bill is simply an attempt to update the legislation respecting consumer product safety.

The issue of consumer product safety has already been analyzed and the Auditor General has made some recommendations. We saw a glimpse of this in 2006 and as I said earlier, the Auditor General raised certain concerns in 2008. In that regard, there is no doubt that the program managers cannot fulfill their mandate at this time. What will happen when they are given even more responsibilities? The government has the important responsibility of ensuring that budgets are adequate and that the necessary resources are available.

The Auditor General's November 2006 report revealed that the Government of Canada knew that consumers were exposed to risk because of lack of funding for the program. I therefore maintain that, even if the bill makes it through the committee stage, there must be sufficient resources. Health Canada's missteps raise serious doubts about the government's ability and interest when it comes to managing its own files.

Regarding what is done elsewhere, my colleague from Québec mentioned that in March 2008 the United States strengthened its legislation on toy safety. In the United States, according to the latest statistics I have here, out of 413 recalled products, 231 were toys. Thus, they have adopted provisions to regulate the toy industry. Other legislation will also follow.

The European Commission has proposed making toys safer by prohibiting carcinogens in toy manufacturing and strengthening oversight. I was in Europe recently, more specifically in France, and I met some French families.

Those French families informed me that if there had not been such a fuss made on April 1 about the safety of toys and such products as baby bottles, they would not have been aware of the dangers to their health that some products presented. They were therefore very happy that the French-language press talked a lot about it.

As well, I am pleased that this bill tackles the question of consumer product safety. However, listening to the debate in this House, the bill will have to be examined in depth in committee. We will have to be careful when it comes to regulations, and make sure we fund this program adequately.

As I said, this program has already had trouble meeting the requirements as we know them now, and it needs more funding. Once again, on the question of regulations, the industry must not be penalized because Health Canada has not provided a form needed for exports, for example. Appropriate oversight on this, therefore, is essential. Consumer groups are waiting for this legislation. The government had known this for a long time and the Auditor General has talked about it.

The government knew that the current legislation did not protect the public properly. It was not until the incident in the summer of 2007, the recall of toys that contained lead, that it indicated its intention to amend this legislation. That is unacceptable. The Bloc has done considerable work on this. The Bloc therefore called on the Minister on several occasions to tighten safety requirements to deal with dangerous products so the manufacturing, promotion and marketing of any product that might present an unacceptable risk and be harmful to health could be banned.

We are also calling on Ottawa to put the burden on manufacturers of inspecting their products and showing that they do not endanger consumers’ health and safety. And we are asking that the approach taken by the government not put the industry in complete charge of the safety of consumer products and thus leave the public’s health in their hands. This legislative approach reflects what the Bloc has asked for. We will have to wait for the regulations and the budget, however.

The Auditor General’s concerns are well founded and the government must make a commitment to having enough inspectors to do the job properly. The bill puts the burden on retailers to make sure their products are safe. We will have to make sure there are enough inspectors to enforce the law and we will have to make sure the forms needed for putting products on the market are also reviewed and are adequate.

We therefore support the bill in principle and supporting referring it to committee.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share some of the member's views and, given the recalls that have been escalating over the years under the Hazardous Products Act, we need to have this bill quickly.

The member may know that earlier in the debate I expressed some concern about the regulations and the breadth of the regulations required, which seem to be fairly expansive. I just checked in the legislative summary prepared by the Library of Parliament and it reads:

Bill C-6 gives the Governor in Council very wide powers to make regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of the CCPSA. For example, the Governor in Council may make regulations exempting products, classes of products, persons, and classes of persons from the statute’s provisions, add or delete consumer products found in the Schedules to the bill, specify the types of documents persons must provide to the Minister of Health....

We can see that even the concerns seem to be implicit in the Library of Parliament's assessment. These are much wider, broader than they were in the previous Bill C-52 in the last Parliament.

I wonder if the member could indicate whether or not at committee the Bloc will be requiring and asking Health Canada to tighten up this process to the extent that if there is any question on major categories or groupings, such as natural health products, that would be specifically put into the legislation and not have to wait for some regulations that may or may not come out.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As I mentioned in my speech, we in the Bloc Québécois have great reservations about the regulatory powers given to the Governor in Council. I have sat on other committees where I dealt with the Immigration Act and other legislation where the regulations were often inadequate. The committee does not see all the regulations and does not necessarily have the whole picture. It is clear that the bill itself should be more specific.

How will the minister determine that a product is dangerous? We need to know that. What limits will he impose in deciding to recall one product and not another? What will his priorities be?

I am afraid that with so many products recalled, the minister will be pressured by lobbies or other groups to exempt them from the act. I am very concerned about the natural health products issue because several companies in my riding are currently suffering the effects of the way Health Canada operates. These companies have been duly recognized by Health Canada for their certified products and they should not be put in a difficult situation that puts their international markets at risk.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, like many on this side of the House, this bill is a good news-bad news story. Clearly we need good protection and consumer safety, as we have not had that for decades under previous governments, and this bill does seem to be a step in an assertive direction. However, I have many concerns that will need to be dealt with in committee before I can vote for it.

I would like to know if the Bloc member has any information or opinions on the bill's ability to more adequately protect us from pesticides.

Health Canada has done a woefully inadequate job of protecting us from pesticides in the past and we need improved protection from pesticides of many sorts. I wonder if the Bloc member has any opinions or knowledge about whether this bill has the potential to make things better in protecting Canadian citizens from pesticides.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have any information indicating that the regulations or the act could protect consumers better in this regard.

I would like to take advantage of this question to highlight all the work already done in Vaudreuil-Soulanges where groups brought a lot of pressure to bear. Groups from the city of Hudson put considerable pressure on the government to ban the use of pesticides. I think that everything having to do with solvents and solvent residues in goods ranging from cosmetics to children’s toys poses a problem. The bill will have to be much more specific and not leave it to the regulations to resolve all the issues.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want point out that while the Liberals were in government for 12 years, they ignored this file and did nothing in this area. By 2005 and 2006, more than 40% of product recalls were as a direct result of U.S.-initiated action. We were allowing the U.S. to do our work for us. The government of the day was happy to cheer on corporate trade but not to actually do any policing of it.

Now we have a Conservative government in place that seems willing to act on the file. However, it is hard to trust a group of free enterprisers who fundamentally do not believe in government regulations and believe in the free market. It seems like a bit of a contradiction to think that somehow the Conservatives will close these loopholes in any meaningful way.

I wonder if the Bloc member could make a comment on that.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, there certainly seem to be problems now at Health Canada in regard to the policing of consumer products and whether it has the resources needed to enforce the act as it currently stands. The changes that are being made have been awaited for decades. I said in my speech that the act was passed in 1969. People have been waiting 40 years, therefore, for legislation like this. Consumers want legislation, but a bad bill is still a bad bill. I am not sure that the bill as currently worded will have the results that consumers expect unless it is amended in committee.

We certainly want more protection. However, the officers in the division that polices natural health products, who are currently doing their best every day to ensure that consumer products are safe, need adequate resources to do their work. The government indicated that it intended to spend $113 million over two years. I hope it will use these funds well and we will finally have adequate legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[An hon. member]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)