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.

[Paul Glover]

The short answer is yes. We are taking a very close look at what other jurisdictions are doing.

In the absence of Bill C-6, our trading partners in the European Union and in the United States have a concept very similar to the general prohibition. Without Bill C-6, we do not. This is an example of where this will bring us up.

They have a range of powers for their inspectors and the ability to incent the right sort of behaviour through the implementation of penalties and fines. That is something that we do not have. They have product tracing requirements in their current legislations, or proposed legislations. In the absence of Bill C-6, we do not.

So quite frankly, when we look at what Bill C-6 is doing, it allows us to--

[Paul Glover]

The BPA is both a good and a bad example about what is different. BPA is a bad example in terms of this act specifically, in that it was noted in the chemicals management plan as a priority, so it was already a trigger for the government, which was moving to act.

There was an assessment done that looked at all of the various sources from which Canadians could be exposed to BPA. It looked at that in consumer products. It looked at the use of those consumer products. It looked at that in all kinds of products, including foods, food packaging, and other things, to arrive at an integrated assessment about which populations were most at risk, and then took a look at the appropriate interventions in order to respond to that particular risk. That would continue to happen, where Canada is a world leader in terms of chemicals management and identifying those risks.

What would be different with this act is that we would then be able, as a result, to move very quickly with industry without having to develop regulations to say, “If this substance poses an unacceptable risk and doesn't belong in your product, you are breaking the general prohibition”. We would be able to act.

If we were uncertain, we could demand tests of industry. How do you know that this product is safe and that it doesn't come out of the product and expose humans to it? What is the ultimate fate when disposed into the environment? What cumulative exposures have you considered? We'd be able to work that in as we move forward. That's where it really helps us as we move forward.

The most fundamental change with this bill is that it moves from the government having to provide proof and introduce regulations, to, in the absence of that, which is a time-consuming process, working voluntarily with industry. This bill allows us to clearly state to industry, “The onus is on you to provide us the information we need to make sure that's working”. When it's not, then we're going to be there as that backstop. Along the way, we will inspect and we will make sure the system is working, which allows us to move far more rapidly.

As for our objective with Bill C-6, I will again go back to my comments, as they are so fundamentally important to us. In a system that is post-market, not pre-market, where we don't get to see products ahead of time, active prevention is through the establishment of standards. We will work with the Canadian Standards Association and others to say what standards should exist for different consumer products. Then we would tell industry that they need to use those standards that would be appropriate.

Those types of active preventions, including working with targeted oversight, the incident report and getting the information we need, the inspection, cyclical enforcement, taking a look at what's coming into our country, and then backstopping that with the rapid response, will allow for far more timely action on a broader range of issues when voluntary actions fail.

[Charles Ethier]

That is really a very good question.

The European Union and the United States have changed, modernized, their legislative framework in recent years. Adjustments must be made to accommodate all the changes made to the legislation. Under Bill C-6, our efforts will be in changing our legislation to harmonize it with the legislation in effect in other countries.

As my colleague Paul mentioned, the exchange of information between our governments and our product safety officers is being improved. The goal really is to have a global approach to problems that may arise. In matters of product safety, the problems we face are not unique to Canada. Because of this cooperation, and the committees established to make it possible, we anticipate that the tools that this new bill provides will allow us to react to problems much more quickly and to work more closely with our colleagues around the world.

[Paul Glover]

Chair, I'll take those questions in reverse order.

The legislation would definitely allow us to deal with importation issues, so we would be able to work with our partners, Canada Border Services Agency and others, to deal with the product before it would even enter the country. So if we had concerns about a product, we could stop its importation. We could ask that it be held at the border. There are a range of things we could do relative to the risks. So it does have the ability to do that, and we could work with them through triggers and other notices.

When there is not a risk, it is not meant to propose that there be an undue burden on the industry. That's where you get back to this being a post-market, not a pre-market, regime as we move forward. When there is a problem we have identified, we could deal with it through this before it entered the country.

With respect to manufacturers, the impact on them is really, I think, speaking as a bureaucrat, quite simple. They need to make sure that in the design of the product they are manufacturing, they have contemplated its uses so it will not create a health and safety risk when used. That's the impact on manufacturers. As they do that, they need to make sure that they have records, that they've done the tests, and that if we have concerns and ask for the data, they provide it.

With respect to something being on CEPA and how we would work directly with CEPA, I spoke earlier of the chemicals management plan and of identifying substances. The two pieces of legislation work together. Our intention in creating Bill C-6 and the proposal before you was not to design one piece of legislation that solves all the problems associated with all the issues. It was intended to deal with consumer products and their safety and to work in concert with other pieces of legislation. So where we see that there is a substance-specific problem that CEPA has identified, we would then ask ourselves which act is best placed to achieve the results.

In terms of the impact we are trying to achieve, CEPA's objective is also the protection of human health, the environment, and sustainability. So we would ask which of those two acts is best positioned to respond as we move forward in developing the response from the government as it moves forward.

I know that my colleagues would like to add to that response. Just briefly, then, I'll turn to my colleagues Rob Ianiro and Diane Labelle.

[Paul Glover]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the questions from the honourable member.

I counted five questions, and I'll try to weave one answer through all of them while touching on each of the specific questions.

We have had, and continue to have, extensive consultations on consumer product safety in general, and the act specifically, on a regular basis. This has been subject to numerous provincial-territorial meetings and discussions. We have had consultations with different industry groups where they have invited us. We have invited them to speak with us, and we have heard from numerous Canadians as we have moved forward on this.

I would characterize this as an area in which there has been a rich exchange of views from industry, Canadians, and the department on the issues before it. I acknowledge that there are always those who feel there should be more, or perhaps they are not satisfied with the consultations because their particular issue has not been reflected in the bill. But we have had numerous consultations as we have developed this.

I'll skip the privacy question and come back to it.

What sort of feedback and building on those consultations has there been to this act since we introduced Bill C-52? There has been ongoing dialogue, with some specific examples of general prohibition and the definition of danger to health and safety. You can think of the example of a stove. It is meant to be hot and there is a risk of burning, but if it's not designed properly and a young child could grab onto it and pull it over, there are different risks. We have been able to work through things like that since Bill C-52 to clarify our intentions and make some amendments with the new Bill C-6 that responded to such concerns that industry and other groups had put forward.

We were informed of concerns about inspectors' orders, how they would be completed, and what a reasonable timeframe would be. Those sorts of adjustments were worked into the new Bill C-6 that's before you. So I think it is fair to say we have capitalized on the opportunity that was presented to us between Bill C-52 and the introduction of Bill C-6.

On this bill and all of the information requirements, we have had ongoing discussions with the Privacy Commissioner to make sure that the information we house and retain is respectful of those requirements. As we develop the regulations to support this, we will continue to make sure we are respectful of privacy information and confidential business information as it moves forward.

On incremental departmental capacity, there is a range. We would be happy to provide a full breakdown of the resources, but one specific area is inspection. We talk about active prevention and targeted oversight, but there is also an inspection function, where the department intends to double the number of inspectors in support of this legislation.

On the issue of AMPS, the inspectors are working on a process that would look at the severity of the issue and how often a company has been involved in a problem with us in order to arrive at what we feel is an appropriate administrative monetary penalty.

On the actual implementation of those collections, I will ask Robert Ianiro to elaborate further.

[Paul Glover, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health]

Sure.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for the invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on Health to provide an overview and to answer questions about Bill C-6, the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

My minister has asked me to convey to the committee her regrets. She has other obligations that prevent her from being able to appear before you today. I can assure you, however, that she's extremely committed to the passage of Bill C-6 and the benefits it would bring about for the health and safety of Canadians.

My name is Paul Glover and I am the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch of Health Canada.

I am joined today by Charles Ethier, Director General of the Consumer Product Safety Directorate, by Robert Ianiro, Director of the Consumer Product Safety Bureau, and by Diane Labelle, General Counsel in charge of the legal services unit of Justice Canada that serves my branch.

Bill C-6 forms part of the government's comprehensive Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan.

As part of the action plan, Bill C-6 is intended to deal with consumer products, and will realize significant, tangible improvements in the health and safety of consumer products by focusing on three areas for improvement. The first is active prevention, to prevent problems before they occur. Second is targeted oversight, to ensure the system is working by providing us the information we need. Third is rapid response, the ability to act swiftly when required.

The act is based on the principles that industry has the primary responsibility for the safety of any product it manufactures, imports, or distributes to the Canadian public; that the public also has a responsibility for the maintenance of its health and the safe use of marketed products; and, finally, the government also has a role and responsibility to monitor and promote compliance and to enforce the legislation it administers.

The Government of Canada is committed to promoting and protecting the health and safety of Canadians, and the proposed act before you would be a significant tool that would enhance our ability at Health Canada.

I would like to take a moment to give you a brief example of how this act would fundamentally change our department's ability to take action when confronted with dangerous consumer products. I'd like to turn to a specific example.

You may recall from media reports that in 2006 there was a worldwide problem with small magnets in children's toys. In short, there was a line of toys that contained numerous, small, and very powerful magnets. A defect in the design of the toys resulted in the magnets being released from the toys. Unfortunately, numerous children ingested these magnets. These powerful magnets were drawn together in the stomachs and intestines of these children, which led to perforations, internal bleeding, and other internal problems.

Under the Hazardous Products Act, our 40-year-old consumer product safety legislation, the Government of Canada's ability to address this issue in a timely fashion was limited. In reality, the procedures we used with industry were voluntary.

Of course, the idea of working in partnership with industry is important, but when a voluntary approach does not produce the necessary results, the government must have the necessary authority to resolve the situation.

Without Bill C-6, we did not have the authority to order a recall, stop the sale of the product, or remove the product from store shelves.

Under the proposal before you, our ability to address this situation would be greatly improved. The toy manufacturer would have been required to submit health and safety incident reports when the problem emerged, thereby getting the department important information much earlier in the process. Thanks to the general prohibition in Bill C-6, there would have been various actions that we could have taken very quickly. We could have ordered a stop to the sale, manufacture, or importation of the product, and we could have had the product removed from store shelves.

In short, you can see how Bill C-6 would strengthen the department's ability to help promote and protect the health and safety of Canadians.

As was previously noted, the Hazardous Products Act has been around for 40 years, and it's been the legal instrument we've used for protecting the Canadian public from unsafe or dangerous consumer products. Although this product safety regime has served us well since coming into force in 1969, it has become outdated and is in need of modernization.

Today's marketplace is significantly more complex than that which existed in 1999. Globalization means that products sold in Canada now originate from all over the world. Changing technologies have introduced new materials and substances into the marketplace much more rapidly. And there are now more products available to Canadian consumers.

An exact count of the number of new products would be very difficult to give, but it is safe to say that there are millions of consumer products on the market in Canada, with thousands of new products introduced each year. This raises an interesting question about how Health Canada approaches product safety. While our department does have pre-market approval regimes in place for products such as pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices, the nature of the consumer product market means that the regulatory regime for consumer products covered by Bill C-6 is post-market.

This clearly underscores an importance of having the tools that are proposed under the act that would grant our ability to respond rapidly and take appropriate actions when dangerous consumer products appear.

Our major trading partners like the United States and the European Union have already modernized their product safety regimes to address new marketplace realities. This proposed act is in keeping with these safety regimes and would afford Canadians an equitable level of protection. It would also harmonize the requirements for industry.

Bill C-6 proposes a comprehensive suite of measures that respond to the need for a modern, efficient, and proactive product safety regime. At this time, I would like to give the committee a brief overview of some of the key features of the act.

The most significant change from the current legislation would be the introduction of a new general prohibition provision. The general prohibition would make it an offence for a supplier to manufacture, import, advertise, or sell a product that poses an unreasonable danger to the health or safety of the public. This provision both reinforces the fundamental responsibility of industry to ensure the safety of its products and gives the government the tools it needs to respond rapidly, if and when required.

If we look back at the example of the small magnet that I referred to at the beginning, the government prohibition would make enforcement options immediately available when there were no regulations in place in respect to the hazards posed by a particular product. This is in stark contrast to the Hazardous Products Act, where a product-by-product approach does not allow the enforcement action in respect of a production until a regulation is in place, which is often very time-consuming.

Bill C-6 would also introduce mandatory reporting. Manufacturers, importers, and others along the supply chain would be required by law to report any significant product-related health or safety incident or product defect within a set timeframe. Again, it's the notion of targeted oversight. Mandatory reporting would strengthen Health Canada's ability to quickly identify consumer product safety problems and to respond accordingly with appropriate corrective measures. Further, and significantly, it would contribute to our ability to make product safety information available to Canadians.

Inspector powers would be strengthened. Inspectors would have the authority to order suppliers to carry out recalls and other corrective measures when required. Bill C-6 would also permit inspectors to take action to follow through on the provision of a corrective measure when the supplier fails to do so.

To further support corrective measures, new document retention requirements would require suppliers to retain information about the source and distribution of their products. This would facilitate better information gathering and sharing in the case of a health and safety incident. I again turn to the small magnet. These provisions would have permitted the government to respond quickly and efficiently in applying corrective measures where most appropriate along the supply chain.

Where there is a well-founded suspicion of a health or safety concern of a particular product, authority would be given to the minister to require suppliers to test products or to provide results of tests or studies and other information that would allow the verification of compliance or prevent non-compliance with the act.

These requirements, as is the case with other provisions in the proposed act, would not introduce new, onerous requirements for industry. Rather, they are consistent with good business practice in the exercise of normal due diligence.

Bill C-6 would also raise fines and penalties to levels that are in line with other modern federal legislation and those of our trading partners.

I'd like to repeat: Bill C-6 would also raise fines and penalties to levels that are in line with other modern federal legislation and that of our trading partners.

As well, Bill C-6 would introduce an administrative monetary penalty scheme, which we refer to as AMPS, as a more flexible and responsible alternative to criminal prosecutions. The key provisions of the act would be complemented by a standard regulatory regime, which is in keeping with other pieces of modern legislation. The regulatory authority sought would enable the department to keep pace with technology in a marketplace that evolves almost daily. More importantly, it will enable the department to maintain the flexibility to take action when new consumer-product-related risks to health and safety present themselves.

In presenting the key elements of the act, I hope I have given you a sense of the main objectives of the proposed legislation and some new features that distinguish it from the existing act. I would also like to take this opportunity, before I conclude my remarks, to respond to concerns that we have heard that this proposal would be used to regulate natural health products.

It is not the government's intention to regulate natural health products though the consumer product legislation before you today. Natural health products are now, and will continue to be, regulated by the natural health products regulations under the Food and Drugs Act. The Minister of Health has written to you to inform this committee of the government's intention to propose an amendment to Bill C-6 to expressly communicate that natural health products are excluded.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the proposed act would give the government the tools it needs to act swiftly and decisively to help protect Canadians from unsafe consumer products. My colleagues and I would now welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you or the honourable colleagues may have.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today we have already completed the second reading stage of Bill C-6, consumer product safety. We expect to conclude debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-11, human pathogens and toxins. At least, it is the hope of the government to see that bill move along.

Following Bill C-11, it is our intention to call Bill C-3, arctic waters, which is at report stage and third reading. It would be nice to see that bill move along as well and get over to the other place.

As we all know, the House is not sitting tomorrow to accommodate the Liberal Party convention. This will certainly give government members the opportunity to be back in their constituencies doing lots of hard work.

Next week, we will continue with Bill C-3, arctic waters; the second reading stage of Bill S-2, the customs act; and Bill C-4, not for profit, which was reported back from committee on April 23.

Adding to the list are two bills that are at second reading: Bill C-28, the Cree-Naskapi bill, and Bill C-26, auto theft.

I would just respond to the opposition House leader, who referred to the two departments that will be called before the chamber for committee of the whole: Fisheries and Oceans and Agriculture and Agri-Food. Of course, we will be scheduling those debates in good time and within the Standing Orders.

Human Pathogens and Toxins Act

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

Madam Speaker, I will give the member an opportunity to finish his sentence when he comments of this.

I agree with him to the extent that too much discretion has been left to the government in the act's regulations. We see this with governments in general. However, an hour ago we were discussing Bill C-6, and that was a criticism of it as well. The government is getting too much leeway and putting too much into regulations. I would prefer as few regulations as possible to any bill. We should pin legislation down. Regulation should be incorporated into bills and there should be as little reliance on regulations as possible. To that extent, I agree with the member.

In terms of consultation issues, consultation is very important but it is impossible to consult with everybody. A decision has to be made at some point, although a bill should be done right. There is no harm in delaying a bill for a period of time to allow people have their say and to proceed after as much consultation as possible.

I want to give the member the opportunity to respond to that and finish his thoughts.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[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.

[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.

[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, 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 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, 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 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?