Bill C-52 (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. The enactment makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, we are now at third reading of Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. We were debating it at second reading not even a month ago. My colleagues in committee really worked together to properly study this bill and to agree on amendments that would clarify certain aspects related to the protection of personal information. Clarifying these aspects is absolutely necessary, since the public expects the government, institutions and the legislation to ensure that their personal information is protected.

I cannot help but smile though. We went through the whole process two times already, the first time with Bill C-52 and the second time with Bill C-6. I have to wonder whether, now that we are so close to the goal, the Prime Minister will call an election or prorogue Parliament. That is what he did the last two times.

The members opposite find that funny. I think that the Minister of Health will talk to the Prime Minister to ensure that nothing like that happens and that Bill C-36 will make it through. The minister keeps saying, as we have been doing, that the current act is 40 years old and that it is time to update it. The Auditor General produced a report four years ago that revealed several problems and also highlighted the risks related to consumer products. We cannot wait any longer to move forward with this bill.

Canada is not the only country to be tightening up its legislation. I want to talk about what happened south of the border, in the United States. On August 14, 2008, the then president, George W. Bush, signed the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act. This act set new, modern standards and strengthened the legislation on toy safety. Thus, the American agency responsible for overseeing the safety of consumer products was given measures that enabled it to have better control over toys. This legislation assigned more responsibilities, expanded authority and granted related powers to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the CPSC.

Since 2009, the agency has gradually been requiring that manufacturers and importers certify that their products meet the new standards, requiring that companies have their products tested by an independent third party and imposing harsher sanctions for non-compliance with product safety requirements. The law also proposed an increase in the agency's budget every year until 2015, as well as an increase in staff of at least 500 employees by 2013 in order to effectively enforce the new safety standards.

On September 10, 2009, the chair of the CPSC, Inez Tenenbaum, testified before the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, saying that she intends to make her agency a world leader in consumer protection.

With that statement in mind, I hope that it is also the government's intention, following the passage of this new bill, to see to it that we, too, are leaders in terms of consumer protection by ensuring that our consumers are buying safe products.

Throughout my speech, I will refer to elements that have been included in the American legislation to ensure that there is no shortage of money or inspectors to enforce this law. That is what we also need to see on this side of the border to ensure that we can do the important work of strengthening the current law, which dates back 40 years.

Now I would like to read the bill summary because it serves to explain the scope of this new legislation, which I hope will be passed quickly.

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.

That is the scope of the bill.

At second reading, I made several statements and asked a number of other questions that must be answered by meeting with officials and talking to the minister so we can be sure this bill really meets the needs and expectations we expressed when we supported Bill C-52 in principle a few years ago.

Speaking of what led to Bill C-36, there was Bill C-6, and before that, Bill C-52. The same bill has come up under three different numbers. I would invite those watching to reread my speech at second reading because I reviewed all of this to explain why the Conservative government took so long to bring this bill forward.

As I said earlier, the committee members worked well together. At this point, I would like to thank my colleague from Repentigny, who worked with me to ensure the Bloc Québécois' presence in committee and who asked excellent questions. Among the answers to the questions the committee had are some questions from the member for Repentigny and the answers provided by officials who appeared before the committee.

When we discussed Bill C-6, a number of people wrote to us to express their concerns about whether Bill C-36 was constitutionally acceptable. I will read the answer provided by Diane Labelle, general counsel, legal services unit, Health Canada, during her appearance before the committee:

As you are well aware, the Minister of Justice is tasked with reviewing each bill in order to ensure that it properly reflects the government's obligations pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That review was done by the minister and the Department of Justice. Moreover, a bill is also examined to see whether it is well founded, i.e., whether Parliament does indeed have the power to adopt such a bill. In fact, we can confirm that we have conducted such a review and that the bill falls within Parliament's authority regarding criminal matters and properly reflects the government's charter obligations.

Another concern that some of our constituents had a number of questions about was the fact that Bill C-36 could apply to natural health products. They did not want the bill to regulate natural health products any differently. That is clear in subclause 4(3) of the bill, which I referred to in my speech at second reading. I would like to quote it again:

For greater certainty, this Act does not apply to natural health products as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Natural Health Products Regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act.

I thought that was relatively clear in the bill, but I asked the government officials about this anyway. I will now quote myself, which is unusual, but I will in this case:

Could there be a way around this provision so that the bill applies to natural health products?

I was referring to Bill C-36. This is the reply from Athana Mentzelopoulos, the director general of consumer product safety directorate at Health Canada:

No, there is no way. There is a way, but it would have to come back before Parliament to be amended so that the scope of the legislation would be changed—for example, to remove the provision in subclause 4(3). So yes, there is a way, but certainly it would be the purview of parliamentarians to do so.

In response, I asked another question.

But the version we have before us, i.e., Bill C-36, in no way affects natural health products. Is that correct?

In response, Diane Labelle added the following explanation, addressing the chair of the Standing Committee on Health:

...evidently, neither the Governor in Council nor the minister could amend the wording of the legislation. Parliament alone has that authority. Therefore, the wording of the legislation cannot be amended as regards natural health products.

What we can deduce from this is that if Parliament wanted the bill to apply to natural health products, a new bill would have to be introduced in Parliament to amend subclause 4(3), as Ms. Mentzelopoulos indicated.

Another question we raised a number of times during consideration of Bill C-6 and Bill C-36 is whether the number of inspectors is sufficient. As I was saying earlier, the U.S. has truly taken responsibility and considerably increased the number of inspectors. They want to ensure that their legislation has enough teeth to be properly enforced. To the Bloc Québécois, it is clear that we cannot leave it up to industry alone to ensure that the products it puts on the market are safe within the meaning of the law. In committee, we asked whether the number of inspectors was sufficient, and this is what Athana Mentzelopoulos said:

Essentially, there was a recognition that we needed more resources amongst our cadre of inspectors. We have done the analysis to ascertain, for example, where we have.... We want to go where the work is, essentially.

In my own travels recently, as the new DG, I visited with the regions. We do not necessarily have a uniform number of inspectors associated with each region. In British Columbia there is a lot of volume with imports, and we need to make sure we are resourced appropriately. It is the same in Ontario; a considerable extent of industry is found in Ontario. Obviously we would have—and this is the case—more resources in Ontario than we might find in areas where, for example, there is less industry, less import activity. In Quebec as well we have obviously larger numbers; it correlates to going where the work is and making sure that we are addressing the need.

Robert Ianiro, Director of the Consumer Product Safety Bureau, Health Canada, provided the following information in response to our question.

I think part of the answer also is that we've been focusing a lot around solely increasing our capacity of inspectors, which is clearly very important. We are doubling that capacity. By the fifth year of the action plan, 2012-13, in fact we will have overall doubled the entire complement in consumer product safety. We actually will have increased by about 125 employees.

I think it's important to recognize that we also are hiring more analysts to do testing and verification at our laboratory. With the introduction of the general prohibition, there's going to be a lot more research, hazard evaluations, hazard assessments, risk assessments. We're bringing in mandatory incident reporting. We need to have people sitting behind computers triaging the data, analyzing the data. These are all individuals beyond and in addition to the inspectors.

So it's a fairly broad complement of new employees. Inspectors are obviously very critical. We have those who would be devoted to risk assessment, those devoted to standards development. I think also a very critical piece, given the post-market regime of consumer product safety in Canada and worldwide, is the critical importance of outreach. There are also resources and new staff devoted to outreach. That includes outreach to industry in terms of understanding their obligations, as well as outreach to consumers, since we all have a role to play. As regulator, obviously, as government we have a role to play. Consumers have a role to play. Obviously manufacturers and industry have a role to play.

So it's much, much broader than just inspectors.

Based on Mr. Ianiro's comments, it is clear that we will stay on top of this issue. We will make sure that it is not government funding that determines the number of employees responsible for inspections and for proper implementation of the bill, but vice versa. And once we know what is needed on the ground in order to do the work correctly, we need to ensure that the division carrying out the organization and implementation of inspections has enough staff.

As I said earlier, the entire burden cannot be put on the industry. It is obviously in the industry's interest to not have any products recalled or any nasty incidents reported, but the government has the primary responsibility to ensure that this legislation is adopted by Parliament—and quickly, I hope—so that it can be correctly enforced.

I will not have time to talk about two other questions that we had asked about the government's interpretation of the preamble, notably concerning the precautionary principle.

In any case, I would invite citizens who wish to enquire about these answers to do so by visiting the parliamentary website and consulting the transcripts of the committee debates concerning Bill C-36.

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

Yes, as the member for Outremont said, the Prime Minister is quite stubborn. He always wants his own way, and does not want to get to the bottom of things or find an efficient way of adopting bills that are deemed important, as the minister herself said in her speech earlier today.

Now we have Bill C-36. As I said earlier, this bill is essentially a carbon copy of Bill C-6, but they have already incorporated—and it would have been silly not to—the amendments already made in parliamentary committee when Bill C-6 was being studied. Members will recall that Bill C-6 was itself a carbon copy of Bill C-52. The only difference—people will perhaps remember—was that when the government introduced Bill C-52, a number of our constituents had a problem with the fact that natural health products would be subject to this bill.

However, there was a proposal to amend and modify the bill so that natural health products would be exempt. I would like to read subclause 4(3) of the bill:

For greater certainty, this Act does not apply to natural health products as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Natural Health Products Regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act.

This clarification having been made, I would, for the benefit of the House, like to raise some questions and ideas that would be interesting to study during the meetings of the Standing Committee on Health that will be dedicated to studying Bill C-36.

First of all, the preamble to the bill proposes a definition that approaches the precautionary principle:

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;

After having read the preamble, we would really like to study compliance with this bill in more detail. What does the government mean by this statement? That is the question we will try to answer during the committee meetings that focus on studying Bill C-36.

The second point I would like to make is about the complementary system regarding the environment. The preamble also gives an overview of consumer products and the environment:

...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;

That is only found in clauses 16 and 17. The Fertilizers Act and the Seeds Act are excluded from this bill. There is one link with the environment in this bill and it deals with disclosure of personal information. We could ask the government if it intends to develop environmental requirements as part of the regulations.

The third aspect, which is fundamental, is self-regulation of the industry. Following the many cases of unsafe food products on our supermarket shelves, the media have exposed some worrisome phenomena, namely the lack of quality control and insufficient labelling on food products imported into Canada. On April 1, a number of newspaper articles reported that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was inspecting barely 2% to 5% of food products and that this low percentage represented nearly 98% of the risk. These statements opened the debate on deficiencies in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's tracking system and on the labelling and food inspection regulations.

When Canada's new food and consumer safety action plan is being reviewed, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the federal government does not delegate food inspection entirely to the industry and that the federal government fulfils its mandate to ensure the safety of food, therapeutic and consumer products.

The recent listeriosis outbreak that has shaken consumer confidence is another example. We have to rectify this immediately for everyone's sake. The Bloc Québécois is urging the federal government to implement stricter food safety standards in order to restore people's confidence in the food they eat. The same standards should apply to consumer product safety.

We completely reject the notion that the industry should regulate itself entirely when it comes to food inspection, as we saw last summer with the listeriosis crisis that resulted from a self-regulation pilot project. We do not want the industry to be wholly in charge of consumer product safety. That goes without saying. Health Canada must continue playing a role in ensuring public health, for instance, by making sure it has enough inspectors to fulfill its mandate.

On that last point, back in 2006, the Auditor General indicated that Health Canada did not have sufficient financial and human resources to carry out its inspection duties. We can have the best possible bill, the best legislation to prevent the public from purchasing products that could be unsafe for themselves or their loved ones, but we still need to take every possible action to ensure that the law is obeyed. We must not allow the industry to be both purveyor and inspector of the same goods. That would be absurd, although, I must admit, no company wants to see its name in huge bold letters splashed across the front pages of newspapers, saying that it put unsafe products on store shelves.

Clearly, all stakeholders know that for everyone's sake, consumer products that pose a risk to public health must not find their way onto our store shelves. The fact remains that we need ways to ensure compliance with the law and to make sure that the industry does not put the people who provide consumer products to the public in charge of overseeing the safety and security of those products.

The fourth point I would like to discuss, and which we will address in committee, pertains to the regulations. Bill C-36 frequently refers to measures that the minister may take with respect to regulations. Broad regulatory powers are also mentioned in clause 6, as well as clause 37. The Bloc Québécois has questions about several aspects of the regulations provided for in the bill.

We must ask some important questions. Given the minister's discretionary power, how would the recall be carried out and for what reasons could she decide to not recall a product in certain cases? How will the minister decide that a product is dangerous? It is a matter of common sense, and we must have an answer before the bill is brought into force. On a few occasions when considering a bill, the members of the Standing Committee on Health agreed that the minister would have to provide a certain number of regulations to convey how she intended to interpret, through the regulations, the bill to be passed by Parliament.

Also, what parameters would the minister use in deciding to recall one product but not another? In this regard, we still have questions, and we hope that the minister or the officials will explain their intentions to the committee, and that the officials will also be able to provide more information about the pending regulations.

It is clear that this bill will receive quick passage through second reading since we have unanimously agreed to it. My colleagues on the Standing Committee on Health and I are looking forward to a more in-depth study of Bill C-36 in the days to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, as most hon. members here know, when a government bill is introduced, the same member cannot deliver a speech more than once at each stage. Therefore, at second reading stage, like today, it would normally not be possible to speak more than once to this bill, an act respecting the safety of consumer products. In the present case, it will be possible because this is the third time this bill is being introduced by this same government. Why is this so? Because the Prime Minister said so. He decided, through various manoeuvres, to draw out the debate on this much anticipated and necessary bill.

That is why, when I read the Minister of Health's press release that was printed and distributed on June 7, 2010, I could not help but laugh. I will read an excerpt:

“The safety and well-being of Canadian families and children remain a top priority for our government,” said [the Minister of Health]. “Canada's current product safety law is now over 40 years old and we need to do more to update and improve this law to help protect our families from harmful products.”

About four years ago today, the Auditor General pointed out the problem and emphasized that we should redouble our efforts to modernize this old legislation going back 40 years. She submitted a report in November 2006 that showed the Government of Canada was aware of the risks that consumers were running as a result of the lack of funding for the product safety program and knew that managers could not comply with their mandates. That was in November 2006. So what happened after that? Let me summarize the period of time since November 2006.

In the summer of 2007, thousands of toys made in China were recalled by their manufacturers because of the lead they contained. The Bloc Québécois said at the time that the minister should act without delay to tighten the safety requirements for dangerous products in order to prohibit the manufacture, promotion and marketing of any product entailing an unacceptable risk of harmful effects to health.

Although the Auditor General made her determination in November 2006, it was not until December 2007 that the government announced—not that a bill was being introduced—but that an action plan had been created to ensure the safety of food and consumer products. The government promised a bill in the days or weeks or months to come. It finally appeared in April 2008. A year and a half had passed, therefore, between the Auditor General’s findings and Bill C-52.

You know something about this, Mr. Speaker, because you were affected like all of us. The bill was prevented from continuing through all the stages of the legislative process and becoming much-needed legislation because in September 2008—despite the fine fixed-date election bill the Prime Minister had decided to introduce and get passed—he decided, because he was the Prime Minister and could use his prerogative, to call a general election and slam the doors on Parliament. Never mind the very necessary and important bills that are pending, let us have an election. That was in September 2008. So the process for passing this bill on the safety of consumer products was dragged out even longer.

In January 2009, once the election campaign and the Christmas holidays were over, C-6, essentially a carbon copy of Bill C-52, was introduced.

The only thing that happened at the end of January was that the bill was introduced. Actual debate began only in April 2009. Once again, there were delays. I can tell you that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health was not where the process was dragged out, because in five meetings we were able to hear all the people involved and all the people with an interest in the issue. Amendments were presented and we managed to find common ground among all the parliamentarians on the committee. However, we did not make it to the end of the legislative process for the bill, because in December 2009, Parliament was prorogued. The Prime Minister, again because he is the Prime Minister and he has the power to do it, decided to shut down Parliament, to leave us in our constituencies and not to allow the House of Commons to complete the entire legislative process then underway, and in particular the process of passing the consumer products safety bill, a bill that, I repeat, is necessary and one that people are waiting for.

In March 2010, Parliament returned. But did the government introduce the bill? No, it waited a few months. In June 2010, Bill C-36 was introduced, the one we have before us and that we will be debating today and in the days that follow. And since June, have we been debating this bill, a bill that is needed and that people are waiting for? No, we have been waiting, we let the summer go by, and here we are on October 7, debating it at second reading.

It is somewhat odd that we had to wait four years and still not have passed it, and be starting, once again, to consider passing the bill, a bill that has, in general, the agreement of the parliamentarians in this House. This is cause for concern, to say the least. That is why I smiled a little when I read this paragraph from the minister. A little farther on in the same news release, the minister tells us that she looks forward to speaking with us about the bill in greater detail in the coming days. We have had to wait until October for her to address the subject in this House.

Furthermore, we are falling behind, and everyone knows it. Earlier, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons had to rise and ask for unanimous consent to have only one round of speeches. Everyone knows that we are behind, but if the government, headed by the Prime Minister, truly—

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, an act respecting the safety of consumer products, which I support. This bill is long overdue. Last year and the year before I stood in the House and asked the minister a question about toxic toys. I mentioned how a lot of the toys available for children contained lead and other kinds of very dangerous chemicals in them. Therefore, it is a great pleasure to see a bill that begins to make consumer products safer.

I want to focus particularly on several of the chemicals. We note that the U.S. has tested some of the popular toys and have found that a third of them have medium to high levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and other dangerous chemicals. Why are these chemicals particularly hard on children? We know their brains and their bodies develop the most during that first six years. Children under the age of two tend to put whatever their hands can grab into their mouths. Imagine what would happen if the products they put in their mouths contained dangerous chemicals. The impact is hardest on kids are under six, especially children two years old or under.

Two or three years ago in the U.S., a four-year-old child swallowed a heart-shaped charm and subsequently died. That charm was made almost entirely out of lead. Therefore, last year the U.S. took action and passed a bill similar to this one, which takes effect this year.

When there are high levels of lead, it causes brain damage, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, behavioural problems, stunted growth, impaired hearing and kidney damage. Some of the symptoms could be vomiting and, if severe, as I said earlier, even death. Therefore, parents desperately want to know that the toys and the products around their children are safe.

We have seen that it is not just lead, it is also cadmium. Cadmium can have an impact on children and pregnant women. It can cause bone losses, increased blood pressure, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and, if serious, even death. It could even cause lung and prostate cancer.

Another kind of chemical, phthalates, especially DIMP, which is most often found in rubber ducks and bath toys, has an impact on the kidneys, liver and blood. There are all kinds of chemicals. In fact, 80,000 of them are used in the products that surround us. The European Union has banned phthalates since 1999 because of their impact.

The United Steelworkers, for example, has been asking parents to go around and check products, especially toys, to see whether they are safe for children and household use. For a while last year and the year before, before this act was finally in front of us for approval, I told my constituents to go leadcheck.com where they could purchase a pen that they could use to test products.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I forgot to mention that earlier on.

The United Steelworkers have this campaign. If the government is not checking these things, it is encouraging ordinary Canadians to do it.

I am glad we are finally seeing some aggressive regulations. For regulations to be successful, they require three elements. They require legislation, enforcement and education. We need to carefully ensure there are enough funds in the budget for enforcement. We know that 65% of consumer products are imported into Canada. We need to ensure the products are safe and importers should be required to prove they are.

In the past everything has been voluntary. The checking, enforcement and recall were voluntary. We did not know if a product is off the shelf. The item could be recalled by Health Canada, yet some of the product could still be on the shelves. We need to have mandatory recall and the kind of enforcement to ensure the item is off the shelf if it is dangerous.

Finally, an element of the bill includes natural health products, which has caused us some concern. However, I am glad it has now clarified. Last year we had Bill C-51 and Bill C-52. Bill C-51 especially dealt with natural health products. At that time, there was a great deal of concern over that kind of legislation because natural health products were lumped into the Food and Drugs Act. I am glad the bill did not pass. People who sold natural health products were extremely concerned that if the bill had passed, they would have been thrown in jail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6 this morning, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. I think this is a very important bill.

We certainly still have reservations about the bill, but by and large we are in support of it. This is evidence once again that collectively we can make this chamber work and I think that bodes well. If the parties continue to cooperate a little more than they have in the past, we can get some good legislation out of this minority Parliament and perhaps extend the minority Parliament for some time into the future.

I have had some experience with a minority government in Manitoba a number of years ago. We worked with the Gary Filmon government in Manitoba for a period of 18 months and got through a lot of very good pieces of legislation.

As a matter of fact, I am a very big fan of minority governments. When we look back to 1972-74, that was a very productive period in our politics, and as well when Mike Pearson was the Prime Minister in the sixties. We had several minority Parliaments and they worked very well too. That is when we got the flag. We had a number of issues that were resolved in a very good way.

I want to say at the beginning that our critic for this area did a tremendous job on the bill, as she does on pretty much everything she touches. She and I go back a long way. We were both elected to the Manitoba Legislature March 18, 1986. I have had a lot of experience watching her over the years in various capacities, and she takes a very aggressive and very thorough approach to her duties. When she makes a recommendation, we know that it is well-researched, well thought out and there is really nothing given to chance.

Bill C-6 follows a previous bill, Bill C-52, the original piece of legislation that was intended to strengthen the Hazardous Products Act of 1969, which is quite a long time ago. It has been proven increasingly ineffective in identifying and removing dangerous consumer products.

Let us look back to the period of 1969 when the original legislation was brought in. This was at a time when consumer products and so on were coming on the market in large numbers.

Ralph Nader was essentially the father of consumer protection in North America. Most of us were around in the 1960s. Some here probably were not, but most of us were. Most of us actually grew up with Ralph Nader and we know that he challenged the North American auto industry on the basis that consumer products, when they are produced and sold to the public, should be as safe as possible, and that the onus should be on the company producing the product to be liable if its product is defective.

Our thinking in Canada has always been the opposite, that somehow it is the purchaser and end user's responsibility and fault if something goes wrong with a product. Over the years, through people like Ralph Nader driving this envelope, we have seen consumer protection rise greatly. The man has done a terrific service for all consumers in North America by his actions.

We remember the Ford Pintos. I believe he called them rolling Molotov cocktails. These were cars built in the sixties that had gas tank problems and were subject to catching on fire in accidents. There was a statistically large number of these. Any time something like this happened, the car companies blamed the driver. It was never the car company's responsibility; it was always the driver's responsibility. Ralph Nader collected statistics to show that these accidents were happening in large numbers and only with that particular type of car, the Ford Pinto.

He took action against the companies and was able to get compensation for many Americans. He later went on to deal with the rusty Ford issue and a number of other different areas. When he did get settlements for people, at the end of the day, the settlements were always done on the basis that the settlement had to be private because the car company would always want to keep it out of the public view.

The reality is that the public view of how dangerous these consumers products were was enhanced by Ralph Nader's actions. However, that was only the tip of the iceberg. When people did have problems and took action against the car companies, in this case, there was always a settlement, but the people receiving the settlement had to sign a release that they would not talk about it. The public is literally totally unaware that there were probably hundreds of thousands of settlements made that people could not talk about by virtue of the fact that they had signed confidentiality agreements in order to get their settlement.

That is the beginning of how and why legislation such as this was developed. In the 1950s there were not a lot of consumer products to begin with. In those days, people never thought that their children were going to be poisoned by toys. It was something that was never even contemplated. In those days, people were not dealing with consumer products like cellphones, which some people feel are linked to brain cancer. I do not know if there is a link or not, but it is certainly being studied.

A member of my family was found to have a brain tumour just a few weeks ago. It was removed and it has been determined that it was cancerous. He evidently spends a lot of time on a cellphone. The family is certainly questioning as to whether or not there is a connection. Over time, I think that we will have to do studies to show whether or not cancers are in any way connected to cellphone use.

However, these were issues that we never had to deal with in the 1960s because we did not have products like this. In the 1960s the wiring in houses was probably 60 amp and one was lucky to have a refrigerator, a television and maybe a radio. That was all one would have in a house. Today, when we go into our bedroom or any other room in a house, I am sure we all agree that the whole room lights up at night. There are all kinds of consumer items plugged into the wall.

People have suggested that these products are generating electromagnetic radiation and they provide concerns in some cases. I know that we have had some studies done on people who live around power lines. There is a demonstrated suggestion that cancer rates are somehow increased for people who live around power lines. When we are looking at issues like that, it makes sense that we in this country have to come up with very strong consumer product legislation just to deal with the unknown and unforeseen health effects of consumer products.

We have another whole area of involvement here, with producers of products who are less than ethical in their manufacture. Years ago, products were manufactured in Canada. They were done under some sort of quality standards. When producers were in Winnipeg, Saskatoon or Ottawa, producing for the Canadian market, they would know that if they did not produce a good quality product, it would not be purchased any more. Eaton's would not buy it from them. They would be out of business and there would not be any other place to sell their product.

With a huge amount of consumer products today, it seems that almost everything is being outsourced and made in Mexico, China, Indonesia and other areas. I am sure that a lot of those products are of good quality, but there certainly is a temptation, when a supply source is so far away and the competition is so extremely fierce, for quick solutions and shortcuts becoming the order of the day.

That is what has happened. Children's toys have been manufactured inappropriately, and we are paying the price. We have to deal with this essentially because of multinational corporations and their free trade deals that have led to a race to the bottom for the lowest possible cost of production. We see that as a positive thing in society, but we do not tend to look at the negatives. The long-term liabilities and responsibilities come back to bite us at the end of the day.

For example, 90 consumer products were recalled last year, and there were 37 more in this year already. Many of these products were not made in Canada; China was identified as the frequent country of origin. The original act, as has been pointed out, has not been effective in identifying or removing these dangerous products, leaving Canadians dependent on product alerts and recalls by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission instead of Health Canada.

We see the same thing in the financial services area. Legislation and enforcement in the United States are tougher. There are almost no convictions in Canada under securities violations, for example, with the Ontario Securities Commission, whereas there are a couple of thousand in the United States. I have mentioned before that Conrad Black committed his white-collar crimes in Canada, and he was not touched by any Canadian authorities at all. It was under American laws that he was picked up; it was the American system that cornered him, eventually convicted him and put him where he belongs and where he is now, in jail, at least for the next few months.

Clearly, Canada is not in a very strong position relative to other countries. This bill will help deal with that to a certain extent. However, once again we have left out some very important areas that should have been dealt with.

One of the areas that was left out, and it is certainly an issue that is near and dear to me, is the issue of smoking. Presentations were made in committee. It was a very big disappointment to me and others that cigarettes were exempted from this bill. I cannot think of a better example of a product that should be covered by this type of legislation.

I want to read a letter from the Canadian Cancer Society, which was sent to the chair and members of the committee on April 21, 2009. I know there are people watching the debate today who would not be aware that this was the case. I think it is important for them to know that the Canadian Cancer Society wrote a letter to the members of the committee regarding Bill C-6.

While it says it strongly supports the bill and commends the Minister of Health and the government for bringing forward the legislation, at the same time it recommended “the removal of the permanent exclusion for tobacco products found in the bill. The proposed amendment is short and simple but very important. In particular, we recommend the exclusion of subsection 4(2) to be deleted and that tobacco products instead be listed in Schedule 1, along with pesticides, cosmetics, explosives and other indicated products.”

If the majority of the public were aware of this bill and that this exclusion was in the bill, I am sure MPs' phones would have been ringing off the hook. We would have received a lot of feedback from the public on this issue, from both sides, I am sure, because there are still avid smokers who would defend their right to smoke.

I know at least one colleague, who may or may not be close to me at the moment, is a smoker, but I do not know how tough she would be in defending her right to keep smoking.

I am an ex-smoker, so I guess we are the worst people to be talking about this issue, but even people who do smoke tend to take a different view today of that issue. Even 20 years ago, when a member of my original caucus had a party at his house and announced that people had to smoke outside, we all shook our heads and thought there was something wrong with him.

Today it would be the absolute opposite of that. Even the smokers walk out of their houses and smoke on the front steps. If they recognize it is doing damage to their houses, it makes me wonder why they keep smoking in the first place.

I recall that people years ago would not have had a problem purchasing a car that was owned by a smoker. Today it is very difficult to sell a car that was owned by a smoker, so smokers are smoking outside their cars.

Would anybody in this Parliament believe us if we told them that only a few years ago we could smoke on airplanes? It was very, very common, and now that is past history.

We are making progress. It has been reported that smoking rates have dropped, but it is still a big problem. We have legislation before the House right now dealing with the whole area of tobacco and trying to find ways to reduce the number of smokers in the country. I really believe we are going to have to go a step further at a certain point and offer some sort of financial inducement to people who embark on a non-smoking program supervised by a doctor.

I draw the analogy between that and what we did in Manitoba with the car immobilizer program four years ago. We offered it as a voluntary program, with a reduction on insurance if people put immobilizers in their cars. Even though it made imminent sense, very few people took the government up on the program. We made the immobilizers free, and as a reward we gave people the reduction on their insurance anyway. We made them free but we mandated that people had to install these immobilizers or they could not insure their cars anymore.

There was a bit of grumbling, but by and large people complied with the program. We had our auto theft rates drop to the point where we had one day last month when we had zero. We went from the number one car theft capital of Canada three years ago down to having one day with no thefts.

That is a perfect example of how providing a free product and making it mandatory actually has solved a lot of the problem. We may have to do the same thing with smoking to get those final smokers. I am looking at another smoker down the aisle here.

At the end of the day, if the advertising does not work, all the other prohibitions do not work and the social stigmas do not work, we may have to look at offering some sort of a program, administered by the Canadian Medical Association, where we offer financial incentives to people if they quit smoking. They already have financial incentives to stop smoking through their home and life insurance programs, and other programs. I am sure it works in a few cases, but not in all.

The letter goes on to say, “Tobacco products cause more damage to public health than any other consumer product, killing 37,000 Canadians a year. It makes no sense that Bill C-6 in section 4(2) would permanently exclude tobacco products under virtually all circumstances from any of the bill's provisions. The following rationale further supports the proposed amendment. Adopting the amendment would mean that in the future the government would have the flexibility to deal with the tobacco epidemic in a rapid manner should the need arise and the Tobacco Act be inadequate.”

There would be an escape valve available to protect the public interest if necessary—

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I had not yet been elected when Bill C-52 was before the House. However, I have to say that we worked very hard with the NDP to ensure that some of the clauses in Bill C-52 were included in Bill C-6, and most of the amendments were passed.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues over disclosure by the minister was reintroduced. There was an NDP and a Bloc motion that brought that back. Perhaps the member could briefly discuss the issue of ministerial disclosure and why it is important. It was part of Bill C-52, the precursor to this bill, and is now part of this bill.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate all members of the Standing Committee on Health, on which I sit, for all their work on this bill.

I believe this is proof that, when we have a good bill, one that is well drafted and one we can work on, when the amendments proposed by the opposition are adopted by the majority, and when the committee operates under good discipline, all of these elements move things along even more quickly and solid common sense always prevails. That is what has led to the bill we have before us which will have the support of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Liberal Party and the government, or so I understand. That same solid common sense is what makes me a sovereignist.

Getting back to Bill C-6, according to an Auditor General's report, the government had known since at least 2006 that the current legislation, the legislation amended by Bill C-6, did not protect the public properly.

It was not until the incident in the summer of 2007, when toys containing lead were recalled, that the government indicated its intention to amend this legislation. Three months later, it made the official announcement of its action plan to ensure food and consumer product safety.

At that time, the Bloc Québécois had called on the minister to tighten up safety requirements for dangerous products so the manufacturing, promotion and marketing of any product that might present an unacceptable risk or be harmful to health could be banned.

We also called upon Ottawa to put the burden on manufacturers to inspect their products and prove that they are not hazardous to consumer health and safety. This is included in the amended Bill C-6.

We also insisted that the approach taken by the government should not put the industry wholly in charge of the safety of consumer products, thereby leaving the public's health in their hands.

One of the amendments I proposed called for beefed-up financial and human resources in order to ensure there would be enough inspectors to enforce the law that Bill C-6 will eventually become.

This bill is a good one and is based on fine principles. We all agree with this bill in principle. However, the problem we come up against every time is the number of inspectors. The Bloc Québécois often raised this issue in committee, because if we implement this bill without having the necessary inspectors or the financial and human resources that are needed, it could quickly become useless.

The Bloc Québécois succeeded in getting an amendment through calling for beefed-up human and financial resources so that the law is properly enforced.

We cannot leave it up to the industry to regulate and manage itself. That could create problems. It is not that we assume that any industry is acting in bad faith, but a company could unfortunately make a mistake in its data or in its research on toys, food or something else.

We want to ensure that the government makes good on a promise it has made many times but unfortunately never kept. It was to ensure that it had enough inspectors.

In committee, we heard from Mr. Burns, vice-president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. He told us essentially the same thing: if we do not have enough inspectors to enforce the law, the bill will do absolutely nothing.

The Auditor General had also pointed out that Health Canada did not have enough inspectors to do the work properly. Her findings were consistent with what Mr. Burns said and the questions I repeatedly asked in committee.

Even though the bill requires that companies ensure that products are harmless, the government will have to ensure that there are enough inspectors, as I said.

We support Bill C-6 as amended. I would like to provide some background. This bill is the old Bill C-52, which was tabled on April 8, 2008, and passed at second reading in May 2008. It is part of the food and consumer safety action plan, which the Conservative government announced on December 17, 2007. Budget 2008 allocated $113 million over two years to implement the plan. We have yet to see what kind of structure will be put in place and whether more people will be hired to ensure consumer product safety.

Currently, the federal government's primary legislative instrument regulating consumer product safety is the Hazardous Products Act, which was enacted in 1969. Over the past 40 years, technology and inspection systems have advanced tremendously in the industry, Health Canada and the federal government. The new Bill C-6 has come not a moment too soon and may in fact be a little too late. The government could have done a course correction a long time ago. Unfortunately, frequent elections have killed various bills, including Bill C-52, which was at second reading.

Part I of the Hazardous Products Act deals with regulated consumer products or those prohibited from being advertised, sold or imported into Canada. Some 30 products and categories of products are regulated, including toys, chemical products and about 25 other prohibited products, such as baby walkers, lawn darts with elongated tips, and products containing toxic materials, such as jequirity beans, which contain a resin-like toxin. The manufacture, import and sale of these products may also be regulated and restricted by other laws.

Bill C-6 repeals Part I of the Hazardous Products Act and replaces it with:

At present, in the event that a consumer product that is not regulated or prohibited poses a health or safety risk, 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 HPA.

Bill C-6 appears to tighten up the 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 safety. It also makes manufacturers and importers accountable, and requires them to ensure that their product is not a danger to human health and safety.

However, although clauses 7 and 8 are more strict concerning the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and anyone selling similar consumer products, clause 6 refers to requirements set out in the regulations. Clause 6 states:

No person shall manufacture, import, advertise or sell a consumer product that does not meet the requirements set out in the regulations.

So, just how some of the requirements for consumer products will be tightened up will be stipulated in the regulations, but the committee will not have any details.

Still, we believe that the government is acting in good faith, and as proof we have the creation of an advisory committee on labelling, for example. It is now in the hands of the government, which plans on discussing with the opposition parties how the issues of labelling and potentially hazardous products will be referred to the committee. We are putting our faith in the government on this. It is very rare, but in the case of the advisory committee on Bill C-6, we are going to give them a chance.

The bill defines an “article” as a consumer product, which is a product, including its components, parts or accessories that may reasonably be expected to be used for non-commercial purposes, including for domestic, recreational and sports purposes. This definition naturally also includes its packaging, any object used to manufacture, import, package, sell, label, test or transport a consumer product or advertise it, or the documents pertaining to these activities or any consumer product.

The bill contains five measures to reverse the burden of proof regarding safety. First, let us examine the safety of consumer products. At present, 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, under the supervision of federal inspectors from Health Canada and other departments.

The bill 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. As I mentioned earlier, we cannot allow only the manufacturers to examine these tests. Far be it from me to doubt their good faith, but independent government inspectors should conduct surprise tests from time to time. It is extremely important to me that we ensure that the studies are conducted properly and that there are no irregularities in these reports. I would have to say that, in the committee proceedings, based on what I heard and the questions I asked of Option consommateurs representatives—who were very well received and kindly answered our questions—and businesses or groups of businesses, having surprise inspections did not pose a problem. Many companies encouraged us to do so and to have enough inspectors, as did Mr. Burns, the vice-president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

Inspectors need to be given greater authority. As I have already indicated, the Auditor General stated in a report that 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 or a licensing amendment. These inspectors will be the means to enforce this bill's most important provisions. However, such an increase of duties and responsibilities can raise a certain number of concerns and questions, which is why we hope to pass an amendment to ensure more human and financial resources

Bill C-6 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. Bill C-6 corrects the inadequacy in the current legislation. That is why we want this bill to pass quickly, since at this time, industries recall products on a voluntary basis, and that goes for toys and all other consumer products. We must ensure that the minister has the means to recall products herself, instead of simply leaving it in the hands of the companies.

Bill C-6 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.

Stricter punitive measures will also provide a greater deterrence. The fines imposed on manufacturers were usually around $5,000. Now, with Bill C-6, an offence could lead to a fine of up to $5 million and the guilty party could face up to two years in prison.

Issuing a $5,000 fine to a company that might make millions or billions of dollars a year is rather laughable, especially when we are talking about safety, and we could jeopardize the safety or even the lives of the youngest members of society: our children.

We have already seen extremely hazardous products with lead toys. A simple $5,000 fine means nothing to these large and multinational companies. I think that it is an excellent idea to make the fines higher.

With a fine of $5 million and the possibility of imprisonment, at least companies will pay much more attention during their research, to ensure that products will not cause problems, as well as during recalls.

Bill C-6 proposes the creation of a system for preparing and maintaining documents, similar to a product traceability system. The bill states:

13. (1) Any person who manufactures, imports, advertises, sells or tests a consumer product for commercial purposes shall prepare and maintain

(a) documents that indicate

(i) in the case of a retailer, the name and address of the person from whom they obtained the product and the location where and the period during which they sold the product, and

ii) in the case of any other person, the name and address of the person from whom they obtained the product or to whom they sold it, or both, as applicable.

(b) the prescribed documents.

(2) The person shall keep the documents at their place of business in Canada or at any prescribed place and shall, on written request, provide the Minister with them.

(3) The Minister may, subject to any terms and conditions that he or she may specify, exempt a person from the requirement to keep documents in Canada if the Minister considers it unnecessary or impractical for the person to keep them in Canada.

This requirement to keep the product provenance documents for a set period as determined by our studies in committee will make it possible to quickly trace merchants who are in possession of the product, as well as its origin. What is more, should an incident arise concerning this product, in Canada or anywhere else in the world, the manufacturer or importer has an obligation to notify the minister.

Returning to the text of the bill:

14(2) A person who manufactures, imports or sells a consumer product for commercial purposes shall provide the Minister and, if applicable, the person from whom they received the consumer product with all the information in their control regarding any incident related to the product within two days after the day on which they become aware of the incident.

I am getting the two minute signal, but I could have gone on for hours. I will just say quickly that we examined similar legislation on the international level. We checked with companies in committee. So we did a good job.

I would like to congratulate the chair of our committee for her extraordinary job of keeping us on track. Not that the members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are an unruly lot, far from it. She did, however, do an excellent job of making sure everything moved quickly and in an orderly manner. Once again, my congratulations to her on that.

I also wanted to point out that we have worked extremely hard, we listened to both consumers and businesses, and I believe we have here an excellent bill, which, as amended, will receive the assent of the entire House.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Human Pathogens and Toxins Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, my colleagues spoke to Bill C-11, an act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins. Now it is my turn. The summary of the bill reads as follows:

This enactment creates measures to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins and all activities associated with them. It establishes a comprehensive legislative regime that extends beyond the present importation regime. It requires every person conducting activities involving human pathogens or toxins to take all reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public.

As my colleagues said, it is important to keep Canadians safe. It is every Parliament's duty to ensure the safety of Canadians within the scope of its constitutional powers. As we have seen, the proposed legislation would require all persons conducting these activities to comply with a number of guidelines. It would ensure consistency by obliging all labs to adhere to laboratory biosafety guidelines developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Licences must be obtained for controlled activities, such as possessing, handling, using, producing, storing, permitting authorized access to, transferring, importing, exporting, releasing or otherwise abandoning, or disposing of a human pathogen or toxin.

The federal government claims that it is entitled to introduce this bill because of its jurisdiction over criminal law. However, at this point, I have to wonder whether the government should really have made this bill a priority. As we know, since the guidelines were introduced over 15 years ago, there have been no incidents in Canada, regardless of whether labs have been following those guidelines.

Also on the order paper is a bill the government introduced in January, Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-52, on the safety of consumer products. The government has known at least since November 2006 that there are problems in this area. The Auditor General said so. Since the summer of 2007, there have been several major recalls, including a recall of toys containing lead. It would have been better if this bill were before the House now, seeing as how there have been no pathogen problems to date under the existing acts and regulations.

We know that the highest risk groups are groups 3 and 4. I would remind this House that the human pathogens in these groups pose a high risk to the health of individuals and a low or high risk to public health. Twenty-four labs in Quebec and 150 in Canada fully meet the guidelines for groups 3 and 4. In addition, the backgrounder on Bill C-54, which is the number this bill had in the last Parliament, states that “The risk to Canadians posed by the presence of human pathogens and toxins in labs is low.”

This is still a very important issue. However, this bill, in its current form, must not be allowed to stop or impede lab work, which is crucial to determining the causes of diseases and advancing science through research. In committee, it will be very important to look at this aspect of the bill in depth and to meet with a wide range of specialists working in this field to make sure that they will be able to do this work once this bill has been passed, especially with regard to risk group 2, which poses a lower risk to the health of individuals and public health. Of course, these labs include hospital and university labs where very important research is under way.

I would like to raise another point before I go on to the topic of university research. I am just wondering whether the Criminal Code already covers intentional threats to public safety, such as terrorist acts, and unintentional threats, such as criminal negligence. To my way of thinking, these threats to public health or public safety are already covered by legislation passed here.

I would like to start with the issue that, in the current version of the bill could, in our opinion, pose a number of problems. That issue is research conducted in our universities. The parliamentary secretary told us earlier that the government had held a number of consultations. And at a meeting with officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada, we were told that a number of consultations had been held. However, despite these consultations, researchers still have a number of important questions, especially regarding who will pay the costs of complying with the new requirements. This concern is mentioned in the Public Health Agency of Canada notes, but was not addressed by the parliamentary secretary in his earlier remarks.

We know that university research is already underfunded, yet today, as we prepare to refer this bill to committee, we do not know if assistance will be made available to institutions to help them comply with the new guidelines or if labs will be left to cover all the costs themselves.

Has the government actually conducted studies to determine the impact this new legislation would have on university courses, on how our hospitals operate and on the research industry in Quebec and Canada?

This question is extremely relevant because, as I said earlier, I have not yet received an answer. I understand the government's desire to impose a new guideline so that no products are released that could pose a risk to public health, but as for the operations of laboratories, I have yet to receive an answer.

I simply have one question. Does the government want us as parliamentarians to pass legislation that I think is incomplete, in the sense that it does not address all the concerns raised by the community? It is asking us for carte blanche, in a way, and asking us to trust it and wait until later. It seems to be saying that it will communicate with the various stakeholders and labs again, that it will ensure that the regulatory framework will meet their expectations and not pose a problem for their operations. If that is in fact what the government and the department intend to do, why then, from the first draft, from the time this bill was introduced for first reading, has this bill not included provisions to address the concerns justifiably raised by the community?

Once again, the government decided to introduce a bill in this House without assessing the direct impact it will have on the community. If it had done so in a responsible manner, this version of the bill would already include provisions to address the concerns raised by the academic community. We would have already heard the government's response regarding its assessment of the impact of Bill C-11 on university education.

The bill also proposes a number of fines. I understand that when a bill is introduced that will affect the Criminal Code, for example, fines must be imposed. However, what the government wants to do is impose fines on universities and hospitals, when everyone knows very well—and I said so a little earlier in my speech—that there is an abysmal lack of funding for those two kinds of institutions where research is done.

The bill also establishes penalties and fines for anyone who shows wanton or reckless disregard concerning pathogens and toxins. The bill also establishes financial penalties and imprisonment for anyone who intentionally releases pathogens.

I am wondering, as are my Bloc Québécois colleagues, about the need for these new prison sentences given that they are already contained in existing legislation. Are measures put in place by this bill with respect to breach of duty, wanton or reckless breach of duty and intentional release not already in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? And are measures prohibiting intentional misuse of pathogens not included in the Anti-Terrorism Act? These are the questions to ask when the bill is before the Standing Committee on Health.

I am pleased that my colleagues from the Conservative and Liberal parties have agreed to hear important witnesses who, on a daily basis, will have to work under and adapt to this new legislation to establish new standards for storing and handling human pathogens and toxins.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to go back to two or three other aspects that are more directly related to the bill. Clause 39, for example, states:

The Minister may, without the consent of the person to whom the information relates, disclose personal information and confidential business information obtained under this Act to a person from whom the Minister seeks advice, to a department or agency of the government of Canada or a province, to a foreign government or to an international organization—

For all intents and purposes, although those receiving this confidential information are required to maintain confidentiality—as stated later in the clause—I find it rather strange that consent is not required. It should be understood that the person may not be consulted or, at the very least, notified that information will be disclosed. This could be discussed with the minister and his officials in order to clarify this aspect of the bill, which could be problematic if, in fact, confidential information is disclosed without notifying the individuals or institutions concerned.

I would also like to talk about another issue that relates a bit more directly to the bill. Clause 67 states that the minister may make an interim order involving a product in the case of problems with enforcement of the legislation. The minister would then make an interim order effective immediately. The clause also states that the two houses of Parliament need not be informed for up to 15 days.

Should an emergency occur that requires immediate action on the part of the minister, this House should be informed much sooner than that. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary or even the minister would like to touch on that. When it comes to incidents involving public health and safety, all members of the public, as well as all parliamentarians, should be informed and given the opportunity to debate the issues without delay. To me, that means within hours or, at most, a few days. Fifteen days is far too long. Indeed, it would be odd for Parliament not to be informed of a situation endangering public health within 15 days.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize the importance of ensuring public safety. We must also ensure that our universities and hospitals can carry on doing their research, and that the government provides more support for research.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you warmly on your re-election as Speaker in this House, and would like to inform you that I will share my time with my newly elected colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

First of all, I would like to sincerely and warmly thank all of the voters of the riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes for the great honour they have bestowed upon me by allowing me to represent them once again in this chamber. I would also like to thank all of the volunteers from the bottom of my heart. Some of them worked on my re-election—with Lise Lavoie running the team of volunteers and Robert Laurent acting as official agent—but other volunteers stood up for ideas and proposals for each of the political parties that ran in Verchères—Les Patriotes and throughout Quebec.

And now let us turn to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. We had great expectations for this speech. Analysts, citizens, commentators and journalists all said that the Speech from the Throne would focus on the economy. Our retirees are worried when they see their RRSPs shrinking because of the economic crisis and the financial meltdown in full swing on all of the world's stock markets. Our workers are wondering if they will still have work in a few weeks or months and if the work stoppages, which are currently temporary, will continue much longer. We expected the Speech from the Throne to discuss this. But the Governor General was very vague and very unclear when it came to economic issues. The reality is that anything related to social measures, anything that brings to mind the administration that was ousted on the other side of the border on November 4, and anything that reminds us of the presidency that is coming to an end there, that is all still in the Speech from the Throne. The government is still singing the same tune.

The reality is that the Speech from the Throne mirrors the Conservative Party's election platform, a platform which, I should remind the House, was overwhelmingly rejected in Quebec. Ironically, on page 15 of the throne speech, we read, “Parliament is Canada’s most important national institution. It is the only forum in which all Canadians, through their elected representatives, have a voice in the governance of the nation.”

Those words are ironic because the throne speech does not contain any proposals put forward by all the political parties represented here in the House, and it certainly does not represent the values and interests that are important to Quebeckers. The Conservatives decided to pursue the same path they did during the last Parliament, remaining fixated on their dogmatic positions and their own guiding principles. In fact, common sense, the common good and shared values do not really have a place in those principles. Basically, the law of numbers—and remember, the Conservatives have a minority—does not count. We saw this in the last Parliament. The House voted to adopt the Kyoto protocol. The Senate voted to adopt it and royal assent was given to ensure it was respected and enforced in Canada. This government ignored that fact, and I have a feeling that what it says on page 15 of the Speech from the Throne is nothing more than empty rhetoric to impress certain people who are not aware of what happened here.

In contrast—and this has always been our way of thinking, since 1993—the Bloc Québécois evaluates policies issue by issue and suggests practical, effective solutions for the government to implement. We hoped they would listen to us.

The Bloc Québécois is a sovereignist party, a party whose mission is to prove unequivocally to Quebeckers that the only way for Quebec to develop and reach its full potential in a way that honours its values and promotes its national interests is for it to become an independent nation. Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois respects the institutions and the democratic process established in this House. Out of respect for the majority mandate we received from Quebeckers, we have proposed a sub-amendment to the Speech from the Throne.

Today is Friday, and as the meeting begins, I would like to read it to you. We proposed that the following be added:

that the House recognize that the Speech from the Throne is unanimously decried in Quebec because it reflects a Conservative ideology that was rejected by 78 per cent of the Quebec nation on October 14 and that as a result the House denounce the fact that it does not respond to the consensus in Quebec respecting, for instance, the legislation on young offenders, the repatriation to Quebec of powers over culture and communications, the elimination of the federal spending power and the maintenance of the existing system of securities regulation.

That being said, allow me to now put on my hat as Bloc Québécois health critic to review what the throne speech had to say about health.

Since it was first elected in 2006, this government has been saying that it respects the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. On page 13 of the throne speech, it says that the government will take creative measures to tackle major heart, lung and neurological diseases. That kind of activity falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Do I need to point out that Quebec and the provinces are responsible for health care? I will keep pointing it out in committee and in the House as long as I am here. Quebec and the provinces are perfectly capable of setting up programs that support our citizens' health and wellness. The federal government's job is to enable Quebec and the provinces to discharge that responsibility properly through social transfers.

The throne speech also implies that the government will once again introduce the Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. I would remind the government that there is still a great deal of work to do on this. Many witnesses were ready to appear before the committee when the government decided, of its own volition—because the Prime Minister felt like it—to call an election. Before the election call, individuals and interest groups were ready to testify before the committee. Of course, we still have some reservations, as I mentioned in my speech in June.

Progressive licensing, the government's proposed registration process and the whole issue of inspectors and inspections will have to be reviewed and clarified.

In the bill he introduced in the last parliament, the minister gave himself a great deal of discretionary power. I believe that there will need to be some clarification as to what he intends to do with that discretionary power.

The throne speech also addresses the Consumer Product Safety Act. During the holiday season, consumers buy many products with no way of knowing whether they are safe. Just a few days ago, RCMP teddy bears were recalled because of lead in their belts. As long ago as 2006, the Auditor General said there were problems. The government dragged its feet and did not introduce Bill C-52 until April 2008. We were prepared to examine it in committee. Once again, though, the Prime Minister decided to put an end to all that and call an election, leaving consumers in limbo.

Rather than taking up his responsibilities in this chamber and making progress on the issues, he decided to put his ego first.

I would also like to have spoken about the listeriosis crisis but, given that my time is up, we must simply remember that we need inspectors in every plant and we should not rely on self-regulation. I believe that the government wants to cut inspections and that is not the way to go.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to wish you and all my colleagues a good session.

Food and Drugs Act

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

My hon. colleagues from Laval and Victoria, who spoke earlier, focused on the health aspect and on advertising. Other aspects of this bill also drew my attention. In an effort to keep our viewers at home from losing interest—although the members' presentations were far from boring—I will change the subject somewhat. I will branch off and address the new powers that will be given to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Since I am the agriculture critic for my party, I know it is something that concerns us deeply. People from the Union des producteurs agricoles have also stated their position on the matter.

As we were saying earlier, we in the Bloc Québécois feel it is important that this bill move forward through the legislative process to the committee. This bill raises a number of questions. We have tried to touch on many aspects, but we must ensure that everything is done correctly. That is why we will be very vigilant in committee. I am convinced that my colleague from Laval, as well as my colleague from Québec, who takes care of the health file, will be able to give this bill, if it ever passes, a thorough analysis that will address the concerns of most people.

This bill was introduced at the same time as Bill C-52, which I also spoke to here in this House. We had the opportunity to talk about it earlier this week.

These two bills have to do with health, but they also touch on the agrifood aspect. While Bill C-52 has to do with the safety of consumer products, Bill C-51 could introduce certain measures that I will describe here. During my presentation, I will also explain the traceability system and the recall management system. We are talking about a framework to eliminate damaging effects on health, as well as other areas, but I will focus primarily on those aspects of Bill C-51.

The bill deals with the advertising of drugs, their marketing, approval and traceability. Since we have already had an opportunity to hear about advertising, I will concentrate on traceability, as well as the new powers assigned to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency under the provisions of this bill, which was announced some time ago, at the same time Bill C-52 was announced.

According to a spokesperson for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, that agency could intervene as soon as a potential health risk became known concerning food imported into Canada. The CFIA could obtain a more precise evaluation of the risk from the country concerned. It could also ask that country for additional evidence of inspection, and standards equivalent to those imposed on our own manufacturers or producers, and of course, not more stringent because of international agreements. We cannot require other countries to impose standards that are more severe than those we apply to our own producers or manufacturers for the very simple reason that we would be contravening the laws and regulations of the World Trade Organization.

However, it is very important that people should know that at present there are still no reciprocal standards. We have said that for a long time and I will have more to say in that regard.

Therefore, unfortunately, under the rules, there are still some products or foods that come into Canada, for example, fruit and vegetables that may come from China—we are always talking about that country—or from India, but also from the United States, on which pesticides, insecticides or certain chemical fertilizers that are forbidden in Canada and in Quebec have been used. In fact, those products are allowed in those countries. It is their choice. I do not necessarily dispute that. They have the right to use the pesticides they want.

Nevertheless, one thing certain is that, here in Canada, there is a very large and well-developed awareness of food safety. We want to use fewer of these products, even though, sometimes, we do not really have a choice. However, we must ensure that where fruit and vegetables are treated in other countries with products that are forbidden in Canada, they cannot cross our border and be sold on the shelves of our grocery stores.

I am very anxious to see that in the application of the law. Undoubtedly, we will look at that issue in committee. Bill C-51 should correct a weakness that we have pointed out many times here in the House, in debate or through questions.

Every time that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency comes to speak to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we discuss this. It would be great news if we were able to make these improvements to the inspections.

According to Canadian Food Inspection Agency spokesperson Robert Charlebois—not to be confused with the singer—who was quoted in the April 24 edition of La Terre de chez nous, the Agency will even be able to test products believed to be at risk before they clear customs. That would be a solution to the problem I mentioned earlier. If that were the case, it would be very good.

The Agency currently intervenes when a problem arises, but not before. A number of foods have been recalled from store shelves. When the Agency knows, it does a good job. It issues the recall and the product is removed from the shelves. Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement.

We cannot wait until someone gets sick to take action, although it must be done, since bad things can happen. However, if the Agency had the power, the possibility or the means to intervene before the product even hits the shelves, imagine how many illnesses we could prevent. Cross your fingers. We have not had any deaths, as they have in other countries when a person ingests some of these products, but it happens. We cannot kid ourselves; it happens. There are people in poor health who may ingest foods contaminated with salmonella or what have you, and can die.

It is important to do everything we can to ban these products and ensure that they will not be sold before they hit the shelves, and certainly before they end up on our tables and in our mouths.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the government to intervene if products enter Quebec and Canada that do not meet our health standards. We have been demanding this for a long time and we will continue to do so.

We also denounced this lack of control over food and other imported goods, and we demanded that the government clean up its legislation in order to eliminate shortcomings that subject the health of Canadians to the goodwill of importers. In this regard, I recently read an article in the April 2 edition of the newspaper Le Soleil. It is very short but nonetheless very revealing. It says:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) admits that unsafe food from other countries may be made available to consumers, which is a concern for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The article is referring to the Quebec minister. It continues:

In the past three years, Canada has had to recall dozens of foods that may have been contaminated.

Michel Labrosse, the Agency's national import operations manager, remarks that people have the impression that the government controls everything, but that is not the case. He noted that unlike meat and eggs, which have a good tracing system, vegetables or processed goods may only have a seal of goodwill from importers and their business partners.

Safety is left primarily up to the importers who, according to Mr. Labrosse, act in good faith 98% of the time.

I do not know whether this is a statistic that Mr. Labrosse truly obtained from the department or if that was his approximation. Nonetheless, if 2% of importers are not doing their job, whether intentionally or not—naturally we hope that it is not intentional but the thought of the money may result in goods not suitable for consumption being put on the market—that is 2% too much.

I will continue with the article from Le Soleil:

Marion Nestlé, a professor at the University of New York, believes that there are holes in the food systems of Canada and the United States that may let in bacteria and other harmful substances. Two years ago, three Americans died and almost 200 others became ill after eating spinach contaminated with E. coli.

I was talking about this earlier. You will remember that American spinach was also removed from our grocery stores.

According to Michel Labrosse, perfectly shaped and blemish free products sought after by consumers have a greater risk of having pesticide or herbicide residues.

I believe that consumers increasingly want good quality products. Regarding appearance, if people notice that a product's appearance is perhaps less shiny because no pesticides or herbicides were used, they may well choose that fruit or vegetable that does not look as great as the bright, shiny ones next to it. They will wonder whether the better looking product was sprayed with all sorts of substances. Consumers are increasingly aware of that kind of thing and they make informed decisions concerning their health and that of their families.

In my speech on Bill C-52 this week, I gave examples of such tainted products: cantaloupe, spinach, which was just mentioned, melamine-tainted pork, pear juice, and carrot juice, all in recent months alone. As we can imagine, there have been many recalls over the past few years. That is why I also called for enhanced inspection powers and, more importantly, the hiring of additional inspectors at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

We should make it clear that it is not up to farm producers to pay for the increased inspections and inspection staff. I think that the government's budget can handle the cost of developing an appropriate inspection system. I also pointed out earlier this week that the government had lacked judgment, which prompted a reaction from the Minister of Labour. Perhaps what I meant to say was that the government had been remiss. Considering how long it has been aware of the problem, it should have acted much sooner. I am not going back on what I said, far from it. It is never too late to do the right thing.

All those who were made sick by food they ate that should never have passed inspection here must be telling themselves that they might have been spared the inconvenience had there been more inspections and more inspectors. I think that any parent who has seen his or her child get sick after eating something knows what I am talking about.

So the existing law has to be modernized to reflect new approaches when it comes to safety and traceability. We are told that this is what Bill C-51 does. We intend to send this bill to committee so we can be sure that this will actually be the case. For example, we are told that all importers will have to have a licence. Today, that is only required for importers of meat and fish. The requirement will be expanded to have licences for all food importers, and that is a good thing.

This brings me to the importance of traceability. In Quebec, Agri-Traçabilité Québec was set up in 2001. The mission of Agri-Traçabilité Québec is to contribute to improving food safety and the competitive capacity of Quebec producers. That institution is responsible for developing, implementing and operating a permanent identification system for agricultural product traceability, and covers both animal and plant products. This is what is called the tracking principle, from field to table.

Quebec is well ahead of many countries and also the other provinces, and I am not saying that to pat ourselves on the back. That is what we must be aiming for. It is a good thing that it was developed in Quebec. We are very proud of it, and now it has to serve as an example for the rest of Canada. Whether we like it or not, interprovincial trade means that we are obviously going to be getting food that also comes from the other provinces, and this has to be expanded to other countries as well.

Agricultural producers in Quebec are the first in America to have access to such a highly developed traceability system. It allows for accurate identification of the source of a problem and makes it possible to contain it in order to avoid it becoming endemic or spreading throughout the processing and distribution chain all the way to consumers.

Consumers therefore have greater confidence in our products, in an era when we are affected by irreparable harms, when we think about what happened during the mad cow crisis or the avian flu. We think it does not affect us, but in British Columbia there were poultry destroyed because of a pandemic.

So we are not immune to it. I am also thinking about foot and mouth disease. But I will not list every disease and problem that might arise in cattle, poultry or other livestock. Clearly food safety is a matter of great concern.

Consumers, producers and the entire agri-food industry cannot help but rejoice in the idea that stricter measures and additional resources to enforce them will soon be in place. We will ensure that this happens. And that is what Food & Consumer Products of Canada said in their announcement about Bills C-51 and C-52 in a press release on April 8, from which I will quote a few lines.

The legislation’s focus on risk-based inspection, accountability for importers and strengthening recall provisions for quick intervention when problems arise, would significantly improve Canada’s ability to detect contaminated food and consumer products...Focusing on imported goods from countries or companies with a history of problems just makes sense. Increasing our ability to scrutinize and oversee imports based on risk greatly enhances our ability to detect threats to public health without crippling commerce or violating our trade commitments.

That shows that there are positives to consider in this bill. That is what my colleague from Québec, health critic for the Bloc Québécois, and I conveyed in this House on April 1 when we questioned the government about food inspections. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's failure to monitor imported products is resulting in a lower level of compliance for foodstuffs, thereby threatening food safety for consumers. We demanded food security measures, and we have no intention of letting up simply because this bill has been introduced.

We have already mentioned that the Quebec government and a number of experts have denounced the failure to monitor imported food. This situation not only threatens consumers, but also producers because the imported products do not meet the same standards as local products, as Christian Lacasse, president of UPA, said.

I think that I have gone into enough detail about this issue over the past few minutes for the people to understand how important it is to us that there be reciprocity with respect to standards for pesticides, insecticides and herbicides in the countries with which we trade. It is unacceptable that chemical products banned here, such as pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and some fertilizers, can be used on foods produced in other countries that end up on our grocery store shelves.

I look forward to seeing if Bill C-51 will bring about any real changes to this state of affairs. It is time for the government to demand trade reciprocity. That is why the committee will be especially vigilant in its work to ensure that the necessary resources to enforce the new rules are clearly provided for in the bill.

I see the time, and I get the feeling that I do not have much left, but I want to say that some of the objectives in this bill need to be emphasized, such as avoiding problems by instituting broader targets for potentially unsafe food imports, increasing the government's power to prevent problems by requiring the industry to implement monitoring for unsafe foods, and expressly forbidding the modification of foods. We also want to improve targeted monitoring by increasing the government's power to verify food safety at all points along the supply chain, including before they are imported into Canada.

I have often said that it is important to go to the source to see exactly how foods are grown. We need to know that. We need to do that. If foods are not produced in accordance with our environmental standards, even if it is just a problem with the water used to grow the food, we should simply tell those countries that their products cannot come here.

In conclusion, we also want to support rapid intervention by creating a new power that requires those modifying foods to keep files, by improving access to the information needed to follow up efficiently on problems that arise, and by modernizing and simplifying inspection systems. If we achieve that, it will be a step in the right direction.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-51, which is being presented in tandem with Bill C-52, which I spoke to earlier.

Bill C-51 seeks to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It has some positive aspects. A bill to better protect consumers is long overdue. Canadians have suffered harm from recalled products and death from drugs that were approved for sale too quickly.

The Food and Drugs Act has been eroded over long years of the former government. Canadians, it seems to me, have lost confidence in the government's ability to protect their health. Perhaps it has to do with the former government's big love affair with large pharmaceutical firms, but whatever the cause, Canadians feel that their health is not being protected, and this is what we must address.

In its present form, the bill is hugely inadequate and there is much that is worrisome about it. I have received literally hundreds of emails and letters about the bill. I would like to read some of them because they provide some interesting insights on how Canadians feel right now.

The official intent of Bill C-51 is to fill in gaps in health protection and to ensure the safety of Canadians. To that end, the bill proposes to implement sweeping changes in how Health Canada will regulate drug products.

As I have said, there are fundamental aspects that are problematic and that will keep the bill from doing what it purports to do, which is protecting Canadians. Instead, some of what is in the bill could likely have an adverse effect on Canadians' health.

I would like to touch on a few subjects that the bill addresses. The first one relates to advertising. In the modification that the bill proposes, it would likely have the effect of providing an opportunity for drug manufacturers to bypass the advertising bans by applying for exemptions. This simple change is disturbing in that it would render the government vulnerable to lobby pressure by large pharmaceutical multinationals.

It is important for Canadians to have clear information about the health product they take. We should not reasonably expect companies to advertise their products and expect that they will do so to educate Canadians.

I want to refer to some testimony that was given at committee by an independent drug policy researcher from my city of Victoria. I stress “independent” because often when presentations are made at committee they are made by people who either have ties to pharmaceutical companies or push for policies that improve the profits of the companies. It is important to mention that this researcher, whose name is Alan Cassels, is an independent researcher. He made the following comments at committee recently:

The pharmaceutical industry spokespeople will tell you that they should be involved in the education of consumers about drugs, but let me show you how they choose to educate consumers. This “toe tag” ad appeared in many magazines and major newspapers across Canada. This one came from the National Post of February 20, 2004. It shows a toe tag hanging off a corpse with the headline, “What would you rather have, a cholesterol test or a final exam?” Here's another example, from Maclean's magazine, of the same ad.

These ads are probably the most egregious example of disease-mongering that this country has ever seen. The ads, which ran in both France and Canada, were the subject of a letter from the World Health Organization to the medical journal The Lancet, complaining that this kind of advertising is undoubtedly driving the inappropriate use of cholesterol-lowering drugs around the world.

This proposed policy would be a policy basically on disease-mongering. It is important to maintain our current ban on direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals but we need to go further than that. We actually need more strict control on the advertising of diseases. The industry might call it disease awareness but it may be closer to the truth to call it disease-mongering.

One place to start would be to ask Health Canada some hard questions. What is our policy around this so-called industry advertising? Do we collect data if this kind of advertising is driving the inappropriate use of pharmaceuticals? What research into this kind of approach has been commissioned? What other steps is Health Canada taking to control it? Instead of trying to deal with patients who may be dying from prescription drugs, how can we stop people from taking drugs they do not need in the first place?

The last question, a question that Mr. Cassels raised in committee, is very important. This is an aspect of proactive health, which we just do not do in Canada, that is inadequately funded and has not received enough resources, energy and thought.

We should not be allowing any shortcuts to advertising. Instead, we should be providing better information for patients. There is a dire need for Canadians to receive approved and regulated information provided by an independent, objective source that is free from profit driven industries that sell drugs. This bill would not do that.

At committee, the NDP will be seeking to ensure that there is no direct to consumer advertising and that it will be completely removed from the bill. We cannot allow that to happen.

Another aspect of the bill that is of concern is that it takes a radically different expedited approach to the drug approval process, which the government calls progressive licensing. Progressive licensing would have the effect of speeding up the process of new drugs to the Canadian marketplace. It sets up an ongoing life cycle approach without any new improvement to the pre-market testing of new drugs.

This is the first time a bill of this sort codifies the trade agreements, like NAFTA, for grounds for refusing to release information about safety and efficacy that companies submit in order to get their products approved. This clause is absolutely objectionable and needs to be removed and replaced by making transparency the default option.

If we want Canadians to take responsibility for their health, they must be able to make better informed decisions and that comes about with more awareness about what particular drugs do and having some choices in the drugs they are allowed to take.

One needs to ask whether this new provision would prevent similar recalls as occurred under Vioxx. Will it prevent another Vioxx type of recall? It appears highly unlikely. Therefore, my colleagues and I will be looking for dramatic changes on this aspect at committee as well.

Bill C-51 also raises the question about the speed with which drugs will be moved through the approval process. This really relates to parliamentary oversight and the kind of parliamentary oversight we should be requiring. The provisions in the bill would make it possible to grant conditional approvals, thereby getting new drugs to market faster than is possible under the current regulations. Pre-market safety requirements may be less stringent or even be bypassed all together according to the stipulations of the bill.

There also is no commitment in the bill to making the results of post-marketing studies public, which is another concern.

Another troubling aspect of the bill is that it would provide the Minister of Health and Health Canada with considerable discretionary authority that falls outside the purview of Parliament. In other words, Bill C-51 could effectively remove democratic oversight, bypassing elected officials in favour of allowing bureaucrats to enforce regulations that fall short of the standards Canadians deserve.

I spoke a little about the kind of information that is really important for Canadians to access in order to make crucial health decisions on the safety of the products they are taking. Perhaps the most onerous change that is being proposed in the bill relating to the Food and Drugs Act involves the provisions regarding natural health products. Many Canadians prefer to look for complementary strategies to stay healthy. I myself benefit from such products and it does help me to stay much healthier.

The provisions in the bill are worrisome because among the modifications proposed by the bill are radical changes to key terminology, for example, replacing the word “drug” with “therapeutic products” throughout the bill and therefore bringing the natural health industry under the scope of the Food and Drugs Act and Health Canada. This far-reaching change would give the Minister of Health broad powers to regulate all natural health and plant derived products and, in the process, restrict access to these products for Canadians.

Up to 60% of the natural health products currently on the market would be outlawed as a direct result of the enactment of Bill C-51. This would remove a lot of choices for Canadians.

From some of the many letters I have received, there is one from a medical doctor who says, “I'm a medical doctor and a doctor of Chinese medicine living and working in Victoria. I'm becoming concerned that the new Bill C-51 introduced by the health minister might affect the public's and my patients' access to natural health products in Canada”.

Indeed, the clauses in this bill would have a serious limiting effect.

It is not by succumbing to the big pharma lobby that we will achieve balance in better regulating natural health products. That is an important piece: we must have a better balance. Perhaps we can do it by creating a third category. This something that the natural health industry has been calling for. Instead of buckling under to the big pharmaceutical lobby, it would simply have its own category, by itself, and regulations that do achieve that balance.

Another comment I have received which has concerned me is the following: “I and my family are opposed to Bill C-51 as it will restrict access and increase prices of natural health products we use regularly”. I think we are all aware that right now Canadians are having a more difficult time. Our economy is in decline. Many people are struggling to make ends meet and are using natural health products to stay healthy. Increasing the prices at this time would certainly not be helpful.

Another comment from one of my constituents states: “Regulations of natural health products should be separate from pharmaceuticals”. This is something that I think we will be asking the committee to look at.

Another comment that has been made is in regard to concern about how quickly this bill is being pushed through the process, disregarding recommendations made by many consumer public forums, health coalitions, and so on.

For the many people who suffer from chronic illnesses of various kinds, I think access to natural health products really keeps them functioning and protects their quality of life. This is what they are asking us to do. I will be asking members of the committee to look at this aspect of the bill very seriously to see if the draconian measures being proposed really warrant what is being asked. Merely selling garlic to someone would make it a drug product under this new definition. Does that make any sense? There are many other examples like that.

I see that I am running out of time, so I will conclude simply by saying that Canadians want to be able to use natural products to keep their families in good health as one of the many ways used to maintain health. Being forced to use a pharmaceutical option is not the way to go. That is something I am going to oppose.

I hope the committee will look at making these much needed amendments while protecting the overall purpose of the bill, which is to ensure that products sold to Canadians are safe.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

In fact, that is a subject I did not address: the subject of confidentiality and everything relating to drugs that are approved, not approved and awaiting approval. There again, there are major roadblocks for ordinary consumers and people who want to know what they are consuming, who want to know how and why they consume it, and most importantly, if it is a drug, a therapeutic device or a surgical device, whether it is harmless or not.

Some day, and I hope that day comes soon, we are going to have to adopt some clear rules. There is a lot of talk about transparency, but we are going to have to get beyond talking and have some actual transparency.

We have been talking about transparency since I first came to this House, but everything is just as opaque everywhere, in all fields, as if no one had ever talked about transparency. People have to know, they have to be aware, they have to be sufficiently educated and informed about all the drugs and products they may take so they can make informed choices.

It is exactly the same thing with GMOs and therapeutic products. I referred earlier to essential oils in relation to Bill C-52. It is the same thing. Consumers have a right to know. Consumers seem to be very wise, because it is letters from consumers that are telling us to be careful and not let a minister do the work by himself and make decisions about a bill by himself.

This may not relate directly to the bill itself, but rather to the direction taken in the bill. If the minister can change the direction taken by a bill once it has been agreed to and passed, what point is there in sitting in this House, doing the essential work and drafting a bill like this to ensure that our fellow citizens, and consumers, have access to quality drugs and that their health is not in danger?

What point is there in doing all these studies and all this research, in bringing thousands of witnesses here, if the Minister of Health can ultimately get up one fine morning and say he no longer agrees with the direction taken in the bill and decide to change it? I think my colleague is right to be worried.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, our week devoted to action on the environment and health of Canadians is proving to be a success. We just passed Bill C-33 at report stage with the support of two of the other three parties. This is our bill requiring that by 2010 5% of gasoline and by 2012 2% of diesel fuel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels. It represents an important part of our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. Debate of this bill at third reading will now be able to commence tomorrow.

We have also started to debate two bills to improve the safety of food, consumer products and medical products in Canada.

On Monday we debated Bill C-52, to create the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and yesterday we debated Bill C-51, to modernize the Food and Drugs Act.

We also introduced Bill C-54, to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins. We will continue to debate these bills today and tomorrow.

During these uncertain economic times to the south, our government has led the way on the economy by taking decisive and early action over the past six months to pay down debt, reduce taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and provide targeted support to key industries. In keeping with our strong leadership on the economy, next week will be maintaining a competitive economy week.

We plan to debate the following bills intended to enhance the competitiveness of certain sectors of the Canadian economy: our Bill C-23, at third reading stage, to amend the Canada Marine Act; our Bill C-5, at report stage, on liability in case of a nuclear incident; and our Bill C-14, at second reading stage, to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

We will also debate at second reading Bill C-32, which modernizes the Fisheries Act, Bill C-43, which amends the Customs Act, and Bill C-39, which amends the Canada Grain Act. We will also begin to debate Bill C-46. This is our bill to free western barley producers from the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly by giving them the freedom to market their own products. We will debate at third reading our bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-7.

My friend, the member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader, said that government business and the doing of business in the House of Commons appeared to end on Tuesday. That is because next Wednesday and Thursday will be opposition days, and I would like to allot them as such at this time.

In terms of the question he raised with regard to Bill C-293, which is a private member's bill, I understand it is scheduled to come before the House in early May. At that time the House will have an opportunity to deal with the matter.

In terms of estimates and witnesses appearing before committee of the whole, the government does have to designate those to occur before May 31. Late last night I finally received notice of which two departments were identified and we will soon be advising the House of the dates that will be scheduled for consideration of those matters in committee of the whole.

Food and Drugs Act

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that there are no shortcuts when it comes to clinical trials. In fact, the bill, through the life cycle approach, is much more effective in ensuring the safety of Canadians because it would allow the government to monitor the products after they reach the market.

I will also address a concern raised by the Bloc. Proactive measures have been taken by the minister and the government. It has been demonstrated with the presentation of Bills C-51 and C-52. It has been demonstrated again in budget 2008 in which $113 million has been invested to ensure that we will have a food and consumer safety action plan that is well funded.

Will the member agree that a life cycle approach is the right way to go and that it is important for the Minister of Health to have the ability, in rare but extreme cases, to remove a product off the shelf? Those are really the main points of the bill. I hope the member will be open to accepting that the government is on the right track without predetermining, what is so often the case, negativity.

Does the member agree with the life cycle approach and mandatory recall, if necessary?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to second reading stage of Bill C-51 to amend the Food and Drugs Act. We know this act has been around for 40 years and that not too many changes have been made to it with respect to food and drug safety.

Bill C-51 bears a strong resemblance and is closely related to Bill C-52, which seeks to better monitor products on the market and reassure the public about product safety.

Here the government is taking things a bit further. It wants to cover other products, including pharmacological products, and look at pharmacovigilance.

Why does the government want to modernize this act? Because the public is quite worried. In the past few months and years, it has come to our attention that some products are harmful to our health. Certain drugs have adverse effects causing death.

For example, there is Singulair produced by Merck Frosst. This is an asthma drug that causes suicidal ideation. Champix, an anti-smoking drug produced by Pfizer, also causes suicidal ideation and depression. What is more, anti-psychotic drugs for children apparently cause obesity. These are some of the harmful effects of taking those drugs.

More and more people are worried about some of the drugs on the market. Some consumer products, such as children's toys or toothpaste from South Africa, also contain toxic substances. Other products contain mercury. The government is introducing this bill, which it was asked to do, to reassure the public about drug safety.

The minister has been asked about this a number of times. In 2006, the Auditor General issued a scathing report saying the government should make some changes. The lack of control by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was among the Auditor General's many criticisms. Even that agency admits that unsafe products may be found on the shelves and that the public has cause for concern.

Will the bill properly respond to this situation and ensure food and drug safety?

The minister probably wants to reassure citizens with his bill. The purpose of Bill C-52 is to increase the industry's accountability with regard to the food supply. The government may also require that food safety monitoring be implemented. To that end, it gives the minister the authority to conduct inspections at any time. It will also require the industry to report the adverse effects of consuming certain foods. It also provides for a tracing system not just for foods but also for cosmetics and therapeutic products.

Is this the right approach? The objectives are laudable. How will it be done? We know that a whole set of regulations will come after the bill. However, today, we cannot discuss the regulations because they are not available. We hope that they will be provided when the bill is studied in committee. With regard to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, passed in 2004, only one regulation was submitted to committee review and we are still waiting for the regulations. We hope that the regulations will follow on the heels of the bill so that they may be debated in committee.

Will the government meet the expectations of Canadians?

In response to the fears surrounding the safety of food and therapeutic products, the Auditor General was headed in the right direction when she sounded the alarm for the government by asking it to increase human resources and particularly to provide funding for inspections.

We need only think of natural products, for example. We know that there are between 33,000 and 40,000 products waiting for inspection in order to be licensed because of the shortage of inspectors. This applies not just to natural products but in particular to foods and consumer products. The inspectors quite often do not have the requisite training to properly inspect all these products.

There was a call for better training for staff and better human resources. I am afraid that this objective is not met by this bill. We can see that resources are lacking, as I was saying. Concerns about these shortcomings were expressed not only by the Auditor General but also by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Today, Bill C-51 goes one step further. In committee, we are studying aspects of post-market monitoring and pharmacovigilance. Over the past few months, we have met with experts and witnesses. We would have hoped to see Bill C-51 drafted along the lines that the committee suggested to the minister after it received recommendations from experts. However, he got a little ahead of the committee's work, and there was some duplication.

We are now considering this bill at second reading. We will vote in favour of the bill because we want it to be referred to committee for further study. That means that we will have to invite the same number of people, the same experts, to come tell us what they think about this bill. We would have hoped that the minister would have waited for our amendments and recommendations.

That is not what happened, so we hope that the minister will be open to some amendments to the bill in areas where he did not take into account all the concerns of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. We hope that the government will be open to these amendments. I am sure that amendments will be proposed, because the bill does not adequately address the issue of food and therapeutic product safety.

I would also like to talk about adverse drug reactions, which the bill addresses. Various experts commented on this and clarified things for us. That is what we would have liked to pass on to the minister before this bill was introduced. For example, consider hospitals' obligation to report on adverse drug effects, as set out in the bill. Many witnesses told us that that might not be the best way to go. Currently, between 1% and 10% of adverse effects are reported. Is the government hoping that by introducing this measure, that incidence will go up? Probably.

We would like to see greater interest in the reporting of adverse effects, but not just any old way. Some witnesses told us that hospitals may not have appropriate structures in place to fulfill this obligation. It might be too much red tape.

I do not know what kind of clarification the minister will provide on this issue. Regardless, we would have hoped to have had an opportunity to submit our recommendations after analyzing all of the testimony.

As I was saying, the bill also seeks to create a register of adverse reations.

We wonder about the reporting of serious and rare adverse reactions, but especially about how this information will be passed on so that health professionals are kept abreast of information from the adverse reaction register. The frequency of common adverse reactions is already known because of clinical trials. According to some witnesses, what is important is what we do not know, the unknown reactions.

With regard to mandatory reporting by hospitals, as I said, since all adverse reactions will have to be reported, not just unknown and more serious reactions, hospital pharmacists are afraid their workload will increase significantly. Should the emphasis be on the quantity or the quality of adverse reaction reports? An increase in the number of reports could dilute the most valuable information.

A number of witnesses told us that the focus should be on unexpected adverse reactions. Is the frequency of an adverse reaction important? These are questions we are still asking ourselves in committee. We believe that this issue has not yet been resolved. That is why we are going to question the government about this in committee.

For example, one witness, Bruce Carleton, a senior clinician scientist from the University of British Columbia and B.C. Children's Hospital, suggests looking at human genetics and drug biotransformation. According to Dr. Carleton, drug reactions have a genetic basis. If further genetic research were conducted, it would be possible to predict and avoid adverse drug reactions.

This is an indication of the complexity of detecting adverse reactions. We would have liked to see a more innovative, proactive approach that goes beyond just adverse drug reaction reporting. As I said, this is known as pharmacogenomics.

One of the major concerns we had in committee about the creation of a register of adverse effects and adverse reaction reporting by hospitals pertains to the method of post-market monitoring. As I said earlier, the effectiveness of post-market monitoring will depend on how the register of adverse drug effects is structured and on the effectiveness of feedback from health professionals, including pharmacists and physicians.

It is not enough to simply create registers and collect data. In her testimony on April 10, the Auditor General said that there were weaknesses in the analysis and interpretation of adverse events, and there was no proactive system to identify patterns that could signal a serious safety concern.

The committee's work could have enlightened the minister about this bill. As I was saying earlier, we would have liked for him to wait for our reactions and our recommendations after our three-month-long analysis on pharmacovigilance. Some witnesses also suggested that an independent evaluation board be created.

What about that? Will the bill cover that? We know that clinical trials are done by the manufacturers, and that often, a number of adverse effects are known, but are not revealed and the drug is put on the market. We would have liked to see an independent evaluation board, and a number of witnesses agreed.

The life cycle of a drug will supposedly be extended, but we would like this to be done not only by manufacturers, but also by an independent evaluation board throughout the life cycle of the drug. We know that drugs are often tested on certain patients, but other groups of people have not been tested—for example children and seniors—and often, these drugs have serious adverse effects if they are used.

The creation of a research centre of excellence, in partnership with our universities, has also been suggested. This centre could engage in pharmacoepidemiology studies that would be required by law and funded by the industry, but not conducted by the industry, which is currently the case. Another guide was suggested, one that would be much more proactive and independent in relation to the pharmaceutical industry.

Any mandatory adverse reaction report will be ineffective if not dealt with properly. That is more or less the conclusion reached by several witnesses who want the government to do something about this. Will Bill C-51 address all those concerns?

For now, as I said earlier, some drugs have been taken off the market, but they could have been not put on the market right away in the first place. The industry could have waited for further clinical trials to be done.

There are also fears that there is an attempt to shorten the process before a drug is put on the market. There are some fears about the life cycle of the drug and following it after it goes on the market. That is a step in the right direction, but there is also a fear that this would shorten the period before the certification of clinical trials. We heard this from several witnesses. Thus, the life cycle of a drug should not be an excuse for premarketing studies to be reduced nor for the door to be opened to such a possibility.

A number of witnesses have told us that they would like the minister to be open to certain amendments they would like to see made to this bill. It is hoped that the minister and this government will be open to the decision made during clause by clause consideration of the bill.

As I was saying earlier, the regulations are not yet available. Will they be satisfactory? It is hard to say. It is rather a blank cheque right now. We know that the regulation will give life to the bill.

The vote here in Parliament will send the bill to committee, as I think all hon. members want to address it. Work will be done in committee.

Nonetheless, we hope—I am saying this again because I do not want anyone to forget it—that the minister will be open to the various voices that have been heard. For three months, we have been studying the drug monitoring program and the new life cycle for drugs, which takes a different approach, namely that trials continue after the drug is put on the market, in the interest of human safety.

For example, we know that some people have died after taking certain drugs. We also know that often, for genetic reasons, some drugs should not be given to certain patients. There needs to be openness in order to better address this whole issue. We have to take into account all the problems we have in properly understanding the effects of drugs on patients, those who use these drugs.

Labelling was also discussed. Warnings have to be issued, for example, if a person is sick and there is a contraindication to taking a certain drug. We would hope that the minister is open to that and that this will address the entire problem.

We are in the process of reviewing this approach. Given the openness of the parliamentary secretary, who sits on our committee, he can relay the questions to the minister. We are counting on his openness in this matter and we hope he will be proactive and sympathetic to our demands.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-51. In fact, as my colleague from West Nova said earlier in his remarks, these are two bills in a row, Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, that we are certainly most interested in moving forward to committee for further technical analysis and more research, but we do believe the bills in principle need to be carried forward.

The section of the bill with which I really want to deal is on the food side of it. I think there is strong interest in ensuring that products are indeed safe. I would say there is an almost public wave for stronger action in this regard. There has been the recent incidence of unsafe food. Health and consumer products have underscored the need to modernize the Food and Drugs Act. The fact of the matter is that the act was developed in 1953 and these amendments certainly update the bill.

Basically, the bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act and modernize the regulatory system for foods and therapeutic products. It would improve the surveillance of benefits and risks of therapeutic products through their life cycle. It is designed to increase compliance and enforcement measures by corporations to encourage them to report adverse reactions or potential health threats associated with market products. It would, I will admit, give substantial regulatory power to the minister.

I know there are some concerns about that. We have a number of letters already. That is why it is so important for the bill to go to committee relatively quickly, so that the witness lists can be prepared and those concerns can be addressed. We certainly support the idea of improving the safety and health of Canadians. We are committed to improving the safety and health of Canadians. We support measures to strengthen the regulatory system to ensure that Canadians are able to access the safest and most effective food in the world as well as with therapeutic products.

I want to turn mainly to the food area of the bill and that is in clauses 4 through to 6. The bill would create new offences relating to food, therapeutic products and cosmetics. It would require licensing for importing food and for the interprovincial trade in food.

In a previous Parliament there was Bill C-27. We in fact looked fairly extensively at the regulations surrounding the importing of food and the interprovincial trade in food. In all seriousness, there had to be improvements made in that area to ensure that imported food was safe and met the same kind of regulatory requirements as indeed Canadian food had to meet.

This bill in all areas would expand the regulatory authority, but in the food area it would expand the power of inspectors. I want to point out that it is not our intent nor do I believe it is the government's intent or even the bureaucracy's intent that the expansion of the powers of inspectors is to be overbearing. It is to ensure that the human resources and the authority are there to deal with some of the incidences that can happen on grocery store shelves or that imported food can face.

I would put a caveat in. Those of us who are on the agriculture committee know that certainly more human resources must be added to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for it to do its job. The government did indicate the other day that there are some budgetary measures in that regard, but there do need to be the human and financial resources for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to do its job and the additional authorities granted to it through this bill.

I also want to underline the fact that one of the concerns that we raised at our committee level was that these costs should not be passed on to primary producers. We have had enough of that. Primary producers should not be the ones bearing the costs for food inspections in this country. That is a public safety and health and safety issue. It is a public responsibility and we would hope that the government takes that seriously and funds the Canadian Food Inspection Agency appropriately to do its job.

The new prohibited activity in the bill really gives the government the authority to take action if someone knowingly provides the minister with false or misleading information relating to any matter in this bill, whether someone knowingly is tampering with a food, therapeutic product or a cosmetic, including tampering with a label or package.

A number of years ago, we heard about a substantial number of those where people, as a hoax or a threat or an act of terrorism really, had sent out the word over the media or email, or by other means, that they had in fact tampered with a food product on a grocery store shelf. That creates tremendous concern among the consuming public. It certainly creates difficulties for the businesses so affected. Under this bill, I do believe there is more authority for the authorities themselves to deal with those matters where there are hoaxes or threats, or indeed actual tampering with food itself.

The other area in clause 4 will also prohibit the importing of food that is injurious to human health. That is an important aspect of the bill that was not there previously in terms of the trade that goes on. It is very important that imported food be treated in the same way as domestic food on the grocery store shelves, and that action be taken against companies or individuals who may have both exported into this country or the company that imported the food that is injurious to human health. That is a very important measure.

We tend, in this country, to take our food system for granted. Canadian farmers provide the safest food in the world. The problem is they are certainly not paid well enough for it. Canadians only pay 13.5% of their income and by early February, their food bills are paid for the year. We do not want anything to happen on those grocery store shelves that will reflect badly on the Canadian primary producers.

The last point that I would make, as I see I am running out of time, is a point I made the other day, but I will make it again. Canadian farmers do face a double standard from their own government regulations. We must be on a level playing field with the rest of the world. We cannot add another regulatory burden.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all members of the House.

I do not want to shock the minister while he is still present in the House, but it will come as very difficult news to him that for two days in a row we have to find some level of agreement with the bill that he proposes to the House of Commons. I am looking forward to this bill being at committee and to having the opportunity to further explore it.

I am pleased with the answer he gave to the member for Mississauga South. It is consistent with the discussion I had with the parliamentary secretary as to the fears out there about natural health products and natural therapeutic products not being targeted by this bill. I think that fear was out there, so I think this will be necessary. As I understand it, we can be assured of the government's cooperation if modifications have to be made in the definitions or in the bill so that this can be clearly drawn out.

That leaves one area of concern that I have been receiving as critic and which members undoubtedly will hear about. It is the question of direct to consumer advertising. While I understand from the bureaucrats or the minister's officials that there is no intention in this bill to permit direct to consumer advertising, it does somewhat change the way it is dealt with.

In the past it was directly in the bill. The bill said that the only advertising on prescription products would be the name, quantity and price. They were the only things that could be advertised. In this case, my understanding of it is that this gives the governor in council the potential to write regulations concerning advertising.

My understanding is that it is not the intent to open up the advertising, but it does take it out of the hands of Parliament and of the committee. That would cause some concern, so I hope that the government, at committee level, will be willing to look at some modifications to the bill, some amendments that might clarify this.

It could be done in one of two ways. One is that we could do the process that we have used in certain elements of the Health Act, which is to bring the regulations to committee for approval. We could limit it to those regulations concerning advertising, because it does not have to be all the regulations permitted under the act, or an amendment straight to the act. I will give some time for the government to consider those amendments before it comes to the committee. Hopefully, they will be negotiated amendments. If not, I am sure we will have some present.

That being said, I think the principles of this bill are quite good. This is not a bill that has been dreamt up in the last few weeks by the government. This bill is a result of a process of discussions and consultations that has been going on since 2003. These are part of the process that was known at the time as the smart regulations process. We were looking at regulatory reforms to the Government of Canada acts that necessitated those regulations to see if there was not a better way to do it, to be competitive internationally and domestically, and to at the same time protect Canadians.

One of the elements that comes in here is drug safety. The assurance of drug safety is very difficult. As the minister pointed out, the test on permitting or licensing of pharmaceutical products is whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. We do not necessarily know when that first evaluation is done what the use of that pharmaceutical product will be in time, whether it will evolve from when the original clinical trials were done, and whether other drugs or therapies will come on stream that might interact with it. We do not know that.

Here we are going with the principle that has been known as progressive licensing and is now termed life cycle approvals or a life cycle approach. I do not know what it could be called that would reflect its true nature, but what it does is say that to get on the market initially the product has to meet the same safety criteria as it is currently meeting. The criteria are not relaxed.

Once the product is on the market, Health Canada has the ability to order further clinical trials or withdraw the licence if there is no compliance. I think that is important, because there could have been such a strict restrictive process, so as to assure absolute safety, that no new pharmaceuticals would ever come on the market.

However, with this process, we assure the safety of the product through clinical trials, and then we have time to do the evaluation as it is being used in the market, because the absolute use might be different from the use that had been foreseen. We heard at committee that the United States food and drug regulations use the 10,000 dosage system. After 10,000 dosages, they do a re-evaluation. Here, it could be different for any therapies.

However, once the experts at Health Canada see how a drug is evolving in its use, they can order further clinical trials at any time. I think it is important to try to understand what this means.

Number one, we know that almost no pharmaceuticals, and I could almost say zero, are approved for use by children. They are very seldom approved for use in pediatrics because it is so difficult to do clinical trials for pediatrics. The clinical trials before the first approval of a drug are done with adults. Then, over time, dosages or uses of prescriptions are studied by specialists in their work. When they find there is some value for use in pediatrics, they try to find the right dosage.

A drug might be developed for one specific use. For example, we have heard about Viagra being used in pediatric care, and while a drug might be developed for one specific use, it can be found through time that it is even more useful for other conditions that had not been considered. This is called off-label use.

I remember reading not so long ago about a cancer drug being used for macular degeneration. It was just as effective as the drug that had been used for macular degeneration. Thus, we can see how a drug might be used in a therapy other than the purpose for which it had its first clinical trials.

We now have the ability, with this bill, for Health Canada to order clinical trials in that area of use and in that population. If we discover with time that the major use of a certain therapy or pharmaceutical product ends up being done by seniors, those between the ages of 50 and 65, then perhaps Health Canada could order that a specific clinical trial be done in that area. If it is for people who have certain diseases and there are risks, we can do those things.

That is a logical, smart approach, which permits the drug to come on the market under the same criteria that it does now. This is what I think Canadians have to understand: this is not the relaxation of the initial criteria. It is a reasonable, intelligent way of monitoring the use of that product over time and changing the licensing standards.

Again, I think it is important to respond to the scare that is being put out there, because there are a lot of Canadians who are finding very good benefits in using non-prescription health products, therapeutic products, natural health products, organics, or whatever we want to call them. They are under different names. People are concerned when they see this bill that it might mean they can no longer access those products. I have had calls about this, as all the members of Parliament will.

I take the minister at his word. When I read the bill, I did not see any effect on the natural health product directorate and I did not see that these products were moved, but the fear is out there among Canadians and I think we will have to ensure, before the bill goes through the House of Commons and the Senate, that it is cleared up.

Yesterday when we were looking at Bill C-52, I raised a question on the power to recall and said that we have to be careful. We have to be careful that the power to recall does not become an obligation to recall. If we give the power to the minister and his inspectors, we have to make sure that this power is used only when all other methods fail and only when all other methods have been attempted, because we do not know of any problems we have had so far. So far, negotiations have been successful.

I see that my time has run out. I thank members for their attention.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the minister about Bills C-51 and C-52. We know that the bill will require more human resources and also a training budget. We are all anxious to see how the minister will meet expectations in implementing his bill.

In 2006, the Auditor General noted the lack of human resources, especially in the areas of training and the safety of therapeutic products, foods and cosmetics. There is a shortage of resources.

The minister mentioned natural products. He is certainly aware that there are delays in granting authorizations to sell natural products. That is my first question.

As for my second question, the minister knows that these two bills rely on regulations. Since the regulations do not yet exist, we will have a bill but will not know what sort of regulations will be made. These regulations could give us an idea of how the bill will be interpreted. Can the minister tell me when the regulations will be ready—

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, in last fall's throne speech, our government presented five clear truths to Canadians.

We said we would get tough on crime, maintain our prosperous and vibrant economy, improve the environment and health of Canadians, strengthen our federation and restore Canada's place in the world. Over the past few months we have made significant progress in all of these areas with lowering taxes and debt, extending the military mission in Afghanistan, and passing the Tackling Violent Crime Act to get tough on crime.

This week is indeed stronger justice system week. We have been successful so far in moving forward on our plan to tackle violent crime with Bill C-31, a bill to amend the Judges Act which has been sent to the Senate, and Bill C-26, our anti-drug law which passed second reading.

However, we will not rest on our laurels. Today and tomorrow we will wrap up our stronger justice system week by hopefully returning our bill on criminal procedure, Bill C-13, to the Senate. We also hope to debate our bill to reinstate modified provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act, Bill S-3, as well as Bill C-45, dealing with our military justice system.

Next week's theme is “putting voters first” because MPs will be returning to their ridings to consult Canadians in their communities.

The following week, we will be examining another priority: “improving the environment and health of Canadians”.

As members already know, our environmental plan announced in the throne speech was adopted by the House last fall.

There is, however, more to be done. We will start by debating Bill C-33. This bill requires that by 2010, 5% of gasoline, and by 2012, 2% of diesel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels. This bill will help reduce greenhouse gases and represents an important part of our legislative plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.

In addition, we will begin debate on two very important bills concerning food safety and consumer and health products in Canada, namely Bill C-51 to modernize the Food and Drugs Act and Bill C-52to establish An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

Taking together, these two bills represent an extraordinarily tough and thoroughly new approach to consumer safety. I hope that the opposition will work with the government to ensure these pass through the legislative process in a quick and timely fashion.