Bill C-6 (Historical)

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

An Act respecting the safety of consumer products

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

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

One example, again, is that the current Bill C-6 is outdated. We have a division within the department that deals with unsafe products in order to prevent injuries from happening. We need to modernize it. We need to modernize it and respond quickly to protect the health and safety of Canadian children. We are also--

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

I will just use one example that prevents injury. It is Bill C-6. Canada consumer product safety legislation would prevent harmful products that cause injury to children from being on the market. In December I believe we had a number of reports of children having their fingers amputated, but we don't have legislation to recall, so I would encourage my colleague to encourage her colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Other work related to injury prevention--

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you for the question.

First, with respect to the area of food safety, our government is committed to addressing the concerns identified in the report by Sheila Weatherill in order to minimize risks to food in the future. We are working to implement all the recommendations identified in the report.

Our government is working towards a strong, safe, and effective system through the modernization of food and drugs legislation. Former Bill C-51 was an important step. But given food safety issues such as the listeriosis outbreak, among others, it was imperative that we take a more critical look at the proposal in order to be confident that the legislative modernization this government is proposing is the best for Canadians. We'll continue to work to address that through the Public Health Agency and in partnership with the provinces and the territories.

With respect to drug safety, on various occasions, the committee has discussed a need for change to the Food and Drugs Act and has raised concerns such as the need for better control over clinical trials, including a drug approval process and implementing a life-cycle approach to licensing. These were addressed in former Bill C-51, and the government remains committed to these improvements.

The final point with respect to consumer product safety is that our government is committed to protecting Canadians, particularly our children, from unsafe consumer products. The Speech from the Throne recently reconfirmed the Government of Canada's intention to respect the wishes of Canadians by reintroducing the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act in its original form, which was Bill C-6 at the time. If passed, the proposed act will modernize the government's approach to consumer product safety, with important powers such as the ability to order mandatory product recalls and to quickly remove unsafe products from our store shelves. The existing act has not been updated in over 40 years. The proposal is important in order to ensure that we keep pace with our major trading partners.

In closing, I would like to say this. The legislation is so outdated that Canada depends on another country for information on unsafe products that are sold and used in our population. It's unacceptable that we continue to rely on other jurisdictions in regard to the harm being caused by unsafe products in Canada to Canadian children. I'll use the crib as an example, or the unsafe stroller that amputated the fingers of children, and so on. We are determined to work through the reintroduction of this legislation so that we have legislation that will allow us to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Thank you.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member has been in the chamber trying to talk himself into believing this is good.

It is important to note that this legislation can contain what it wants. It can contain exemptions. We have heard about aboriginal people who are being affected. There could be all kinds of different things attached to this legislation, there is no doubt about it, but the whole point is that it should go through the proper process so that amendments can be made. We amend government bills all the time.

In fact, it is even done by the unelected Senate. On Bill C-6 it brought in a number of amendments that the government does not agree with and I do not agree with, either. I am concerned about some of those as well. However, that is the normal process we go through.

I do not know how the member can actually participate in this debate with any sincerity. He always argues for due process in committees like the one he is on. We should go through that due diligence. We have seen the effects on this.

When the Conservatives changed the Investment Canada Act, they did not run it through the normal process. They attached it to the budget, then it got support from the Liberals at that time and the Investment Canada Act never went through committee. The result of that is there is actually a loop-out clause.

Nortel, just a few months ago, sold for over $1 billion. After the sale took place, Ericsson then suggested the listed price was under $321 million, which is the threshold for the Investment Canada Act to be triggered. What happened? The government agreed and it did not have to go through the Investment Canada Act. That was despite the fact that the day before it paid over $1 billion for Nortel.

It is an example of the problems that emerge if we do not do our job right and we are not doing our job right here. This is going to have an impact across a number of different sectors that are critical to the Canadian economy. It is going to create an imbalance.

Why would we not actually want to know what the issues are going to be, whether the concerns are valid, and how we could address the ones that are valid before we shove this out the door? It is unacceptable.

Consumer Product Safety

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government will always put the health and safety of Canadians first. It takes the issue of protecting everyone, especially children, from dangerous products very seriously.

That is why we introduced Bill C-6 to protect Canadians from dangerous products. This House passed Bill C-6 in June and the Liberal leader's senators have held the bill up in the Senate since. Now they are trying to gut it.

The Liberal leader must recognize the need for this important legislation, which would make it easier to recall a product as soon as inspectors determined it was a danger. If the Liberal leader will not make the health and safety of Canadians a priority, it is no wonder there are Liberals whispering in lounges across Ottawa.

The Liberal leader needs to tell his senators that this is an important bill. The new tools would help protect Canadian families. If the Liberal leader will not take action, he is only proving what we said before. He is not in it for Canadians; he is just in it for himself.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, under the weak leadership of their leader, Liberal senators voted to amend 16 clauses of our consumer protection bill, Bill C-6. This has made the bill dysfunctional and considerably weakens it.

Canadians, many of them parents, have less protection today thanks to the Liberals. While they are shopping for gifts to put under the tree, they can thank the weak leadership of the Liberals for making sure the bad actors, those people who normally sell bad products, are the winners in this. Shame on them.

The bill was designed to give us the tools to quickly respond to dangerous consumer products. Instead, the Liberals have given the devious the tools to keep selling these products to Canadians. The Liberal leader needs to wake up and lead his party, not follow it. He should wake up and instruct the Liberal senators to vote against these amendments and pass this bill.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, just last week a Canadian company recalled over two million baby cribs. It was the largest ever such recall in North America. This is exactly the kind of occurrence our government is trying to prevent.

Recently, Health Canada introduced a bill with the intent to protect the public by addressing dangers to human health and safety posed by consumer products, like these cribs, in Canada.

Bill C-6 was passed unanimously by elected officials of this House. Currently, however, the bill is being delayed and potentially gutted by Liberal senators.

Why is it when the House passes a bill unanimously, the Liberal members of the Senate hold it up? Where is the leadership in the Liberal Party? Why is the Liberal leader not stepping in to ensure Canadians have the protections provided by Bill C-6?

Our children deserve no less.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, the safety of our children is our government's top priority. Since taking office, we have been delivering results to keep our families safe. We are putting law-abiding families first and criminals behind bars.

However, the Liberals and their weak leader have held up and watered down our legislation. Liberal senators stalled stiffer sentences for drug dealers who target kids. They tried to gut our two for one sentencing bill.

Now Bill C-6 languishes in the Senate. This bill would modernize product safety laws that have not been updated in forty years. It would bring us more in line with American and European standards, and protect the most vulnerable, including our children. However, the Liberals are working against these measures by stalling them with their unelected Senate majority.

This bill has been in the Senate for six months and before committee for two months, but Canadians are still waiting. The Liberal leaders come and go, but the dithering and failing never change. Canadians deserve better.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the member for that question.

This legislation we've introduced, Bill C-6, on the safety of consumer products, is long overdue in Canada. The legislation we're dealing with is 40 years old. The legislation introduced that is before Senate as we sit here will allow Health Canada to do mandatory recalls when we discover unsafe products in the market. It will allow us to work with industry when there are complaints about products or incidents with products—cribs and so on. It will allow them to report incidents of that nature to us so we can monitor at a national level which products may be unsafe.

As it is right now, we do not have the authority to do that. We do not have the authority to do mandatory recalls. In fact, we have to beg, negotiate, and consult to remove unsafe products from our shelves. So I hope the senators will think about the young children out there.

I have a son, as you said. My concern is to ensure that parents have the confidence that the products they buy from the shelves, particularly around Christmas, are safe and there is no lead, and so on.

This legislation would allow Canada to also catch up to other countries like the United States that have mandatory reporting and recall. In fact, we would not have learned of the crib recall had we not received the information from the United States. It's important that we catch up to other countries to ensure that the products coming into our country are safe, and that we protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Thank you.

Good afternoon everyone. It's my pleasure to be here with you once again.

With me today from Health Canada are Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Minister, and Alfred Tsang, chief financial officer. As well, from the Public Health Agency of Canada, we have Dr. David Butler-Jones, chief public health officer, and Jim Libbey, the chief financial officer.

This has been an extraordinary year for the health portfolio. Since I appeared before you on the main estimates in May, we have been moving forward with many important improvements to our tobacco laws, Bill C-32, and our consumer protection legislation, Bill C-6, while dealing with an emerging influenza pandemic.

Since May, we have also developed and made investments in improving protections against food-borne illnesses in response to all 57 recommendations made by independent investigator Sheila Weatherill.

Collaborations with the provinces and territories, as well as first nations communities, have been of primary importance. International discussions and information-sharing have proved to be fruitful and, in the case of the H1N1 pandemic, have helped in our success.

We are now in the middle of the largest vaccination campaign in this country's history. It is one that could only have been undertaken with the unprecedented level of cooperation we have seen between all levels of government. We have kept close contact with the World Health Organization and other international partners. Here at home, we have maintained an open line of communication with provincial and territorial governments with respect to the H1N1 virus.

From a national perspective, the vaccination program is progressing very well. From our largest urban centres to small, isolated communities, the vaccine is getting to those who want it and need it. This is the sixth week of the campaign, and more than 20 million doses have been made available to Canadians so far. We are well on our way to having enough vaccine for everyone who wants it by Christmas. I would again like to express my appreciation to the provinces, territories, and all the front line workers who are vaccinating thousands of Canadians every day.

We were able to approve a safe and effective vaccine thanks to the unprecedented level of collaboration among international regulators. This collaboration started a few years ago, and Canada has been an active participant. In fact, the key Canadian contribution occurred in the spring, when public health scientists helped identify the strain of the new virus.

Our work with the H1N1 pandemic has provided us with an opportunity to learn. A better understanding of this flu has allowed us to acquire the wisdom and knowledge to respond to the illness if a third wave comes. It will also provide us with experience and guidance for the future, if needed.

Our work on this is ongoing. That is why the Canadian Institutes of Health Research announced support for five new research projects designed to help further understand and address the H1N1 flu virus. We are already a global leader in H1N1 flu virus research. The new research being funded will help ensure that our knowledge, approach, and planning remains amongst the best in the world.

Canadian scientists will try to understand, among other things, why the virus causes some patients to develop serious respiratory illnesses. Another team will study the impact of the virus on pregnant women and try to determine why some develop complications. Another group will study the impact this pandemic is having on health care resources.

Our goal is to learn as much as we can while this virus is having its greatest impact. That kind of learning experience will guide our response to future pandemics. This pandemic is unique because we continue to learn about it the longer it is around. Obviously, we want to keep ahead of it as it continues to circulate through the country and the globe.

Earlier this year, when the illness had spread in some isolated first nations communities, we addressed the vulnerability of the hundreds of remote and isolated communities throughout the country. Ever since that first wave, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency have been helping first nations prepare for the second wave. Being from a remote community, I know so well the challenges these regions face with health issues.

A federal-provincial-territorial working group was created at the outset of the pandemic to address issues specific to isolated and remote communities. I also appointed Dr. Paul Gully, who provided the much needed support and link between the first nations communities and our offices.

By October 23 more than 95% of first nations communities had pandemic plans in place. First nations had been sent supplies needed to deal with a pandemic, and antiviral medications had already been shipped to strategic locations for easy distribution. A plan was also in place to reallocate nursing staff to facilitate vaccine rollout.

As testimony to our efforts, I have provided you with the video of my visit to the Cowessess First Nation in Saskatchewan. This community was thoroughly prepared for the second wave of the virus. During my visit I met community leaders who embraced the challenge of getting their friends, family, and neighbours prepared.

The success of the preparations in Cowessess and hundreds of other communities just like it is due to the collaboration between the federal government and first nations. Many small communities were hit by the virus during the first wave, and the lessons learned during the first outbreak enhanced our preparations for the second wave.

Within three days of the approval of the vaccine, teams of health care workers flew to remote communities to vaccinate everyone who wanted to be vaccinated. The response was very high. Clearly, our message regarding the importance and safety of the vaccine had been effectively communicated.

I also signed a communications protocol with the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Chuck Strahl, and the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo. That protocol was and continues to be a commitment to share information with first nations in a timely way.

Our first initiative under that protocol was to host a virtual summit to share important information about H1N1.

Preparations for the second wave in first nations were guided by annex B of the Canadian pandemic influenza plan, which had been adjusted to incorporate lessons learned during the first wave.

While flu activity has levelled off in some parts of the country, we continue to roll out our vaccine, inform Canadians, and remain vigilant in the event of a third wave of the H1N1 virus. We'll also continue the process of broadening our pandemic planning and make specific plans on how we will deal with future health concerns. This has been the first real test of our Canadian pandemic influenza plan, and, as I mentioned earlier, our biggest vaccination program.

While the H1N1 virus has dominated the health agenda since April, the other business of the health portfolio has kept moving forward.

With your cooperation we have passed Bill C-32, the Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act. This legislation will protect children from tobacco marketing practices designed to entice young people to smoke. As well, by the banning of flavours and additives and by instituting minimum package sizes, the appeal of these products to children and youth is greatly reduced.

Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, is now before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. In fact, senators are engaged in clause-by-clause consideration of this bill right now, as I speak to you. The proposed legislation would better protect Canadian families from dangerous consumer products. It would allow for much needed product recalls and mandatory reporting. In short, it will give the government the necessary tools to act in a timely and consistent manner to protect Canadians against unsafe consumer products. This is so important, particularly at this time of year when many parents are shopping for Christmas gifts. Parents need to know that the gifts they put under their Christmas trees are safe for their children.

I applaud this committee for recognizing the importance of this long overdue bill and for its timely yet diligent scrutiny of Bill C-6. I urge the Senate to follow suit and pass the legislation without delay. I hope they will be inspired by my encouragements today.

Another major issue for the health portfolio has been the global shortage of medical isotopes since the shutdown of the reactor at Chalk River. The impact of the shortage has been managed here in Canada because the lessons learned during the shutdown at Chalk River were used to develop contingency plans. These plans are now helping medical staff cope with the shortage.

The research for alternatives and the methods of dealing with the shortage had been well under way long before Chalk River went down. We have been able to cope with the shortage through cooperation with the provinces and the territories. The impact of the shortage has been mitigated by the hard work and dedication of the nuclear medicine community. With alternative solutions, however, patients ultimately receive the diagnostic scans they need.

In 2009 we also took actions to strengthen Canada's food safety system. In partnership with the Minister of Agrigulture, Gerry Ritz, I announced that the government will invest $75 million in Canada's food safety system in response to the recommendations made by independent investigator Sheila Weatherill. Those new investments will improve our ability to prevent, detect, and respond to future outbreaks of foodborne illness. The investments will mean expanded listeria testing, more inspectors, and better surveillance and communication. In the months ahead we must remain vigilant and adapt quickly.

Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to address you today. My experience as federal Minister of Health has been extremely rewarding. I have been given the opportunity to travel and meet with Canadians from across the country. I work with intelligent, determined, and thoughtful individuals who have the same care for the well-being of Canadians that I do. It is truly a privilege to be here on their behalf.

Thank you.

Electronic Commerce Protection Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-27. I will read the precursor to the bill so that the public knows what we are talking about.

This is known as the anti-spam bill, but in particular it is An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act.

This is about limiting electronic messaging that is unsolicited and unwanted which is coming across the Internet to many people in their homes and businesses. It is affecting the economy and the productivity of Canada and. in my opinion, is also a breach of consumer rights in many respects.

This is the reference in terms of the informal notation of spam. We all have received it in our mailboxes, whether it is an account at work or at home where we have received unsolicited electronic messaging.

I was pleased to support the government when it brought forward Bill C-27. It had interesting dynamics on the political front because during this process, it appeared the government would cave to a number of different initiatives from the Bloc and the Liberals to weaken the bill, but that was prevented at committee. We do have, I believe, all party support right now to bring a piece of legislation in line, which we can all be proud of and that will benefit consumers and the Canadian economy.

I would like to note that I am a bit worried about where the government is going with this legislation in terms of prioritization. We made an effort in the committee to work through this really quickly and I gave my personal word to move through this really quickly. We did get that done at committee and we did ensure that we preserved the fundamentals of the bill. There was some weakening of it, which I did not agree with, but at least it still meets the test at the end of the day.

It then took literally weeks before it appeared back here in the House of Commons and is finally coming back here again. It needs to be voted on again here in the House of Commons before it can move to the other place, the Senate. Unfortunately, some other bills have been stalling in the Senate. I do not know the politics between the Liberal and the Conservative Parties with regard to some of the legislation, but one of them I would note is Bill C-6, which is critical because it relates once again to consumer product safety for recall.

I would point out more recent examples. There was the one with the baby cribs, but there was also the one with regard to Toyota products where four million Americans received a recall notice related to brake and acceleration issues caused by the floor mats. Meanwhile, the 200,000 Canadians who had the same problem over here only got a public announcement on a website posting at their expense really.

I do not know why. I have written Toyota and asked why it has not done this for Canadians. It is ridiculous. Our public safety and a number of things are at risk.

However, that is an example of a bill that is stalled and we do not know where it is going to go.

The bill enjoys strong public support and it has the support of the New Democratic Party. This is part of our electoral platform in moving a number of consumer issues forward that we really want to see implemented as law. The other place will have to do some work on this bill and there will be some lobby efforts on this bill. That happened at our committee. I could be wrong but if I am not mistaken, some members of the other parties were accepting questions literally from the lobbyists in the meetings.

I think there will be a push to weaken the bill. However, some elements in the bill make it really strong and make it a good bill for Canadians and Canadian businesses because it affects our economy.

When we look at the issue of spam and electronic messaging, we need to recognize that Canada is in the top 10 and one of the few countries in the G8 that do not have this type of legislation. We are behind. We can catch up with this bill quite significantly and have one of the better models to deal with the issue.

Approximately 5% of the spam in the world comes from Canada. We are actually known as a harbour of some of the actual big spammers out there. I think we stand fourth in the world in terms of spamming, behind Russia and just ahead of Brazil.

We heard this before and it was important that we change it in terms of some of our workings with the United States. In the past, movies playing in Canadian theatres could be taped and that technically was not illegal. We were able to solve that problem over a year ago, giving credit to the way the Canadian market worked in terms of being fair to consumers and the industry. I see the same with this bill.

The model that is being proposed in this bill is a bit different than the United States. The United States passed a law in 2003 called controlling the assault of non-solicited pornography and marketing act. The U.S. calls this bill the can the spam bill because there is an opt out clause. An individual must opt out from receiving information.

Canada would have a much more proficient system with this bill. If an individual does not have an existing business relationship or does not have permission, then he or she should not be sending unsolicited emails. This would be a better system because it would clean things up more profoundly.

Some good things have taken place with regard to the United States system. There have been some charges related to it and there has been a reduction in spam. However, nothing will solve this problem outright. There is no doubt that no matter what law we put in place, there will be some challenges. There will be those who will always break the law. It does not matter what law we actually set in this chamber because there are always those who will take advantage of other people despite their economic and personal issues.

Electronic commerce activity is increasingly important in a competitive world. It is also important for us to meet our needs on the telecommunications run as we learn about the world and the use the Internet. Harboured down with approximately 87% of activity being electronic messaging undermines the Internet.

It is important to note that some good electronic commerce does take place. Businesses can effectively use it for advertising their services. Consumers want to use electronic commerce and that will continue, but there will be some regulation under this bill. This bill would take away some of the most offensive and egregious issues. Individuals would be penalized. Private action could take place as well, which is another strong point of the bill. I will get into this later in my speech.

As I mentioned, spam represents about 87% of email activity around the world. Last year it was estimated that 62 trillion spam emails were sent out and it is done in a variety of ways. This bill would identify some of those ways and eliminate them. I will get into a few of those as well.

An Ipsos Reid poll found that approximately 130 spam messages are received by Canadians each week, and that is troubling because that is up 51% from the year before. It is not just the irritation of removing unwanted messages and solicitations but it is also time-consuming. Employers are worried about the time this takes and the cost.

I do want to make a point that we in the NDP have been really strong on in terms of consumer rights. It is not a right to send these messages, it is actually a privilege. Let us think about that. When people purchase a computer or other electronic equipment that receives messages, they pay for that out of their own pocket. They also pay to maintain that equipment as well as paying for continual upgrades to software and so forth to ensure it is working efficiently. They also pay for the Internet service, the actual conductor of the information. Those who are sending spam need to understand that.

It should not just be an absolute right that we get inundated by activity, especially when we have some in the marketplace who are using malware and other types of spy software to try to gain more information about us by surfing the Internet to find out what our habits might be as consumers on the Internet. That also undermines the our ability to have confidence in it as a vehicle for doing commerce and legitimate business. It is important that those people who behave in that activity would be punished for offences under this new act.

This bill would create laws based on the federal trade and commerce power. That is important, because it will provide an opt-in approach. So there will be existing business relationships that we have and there is a timeframe for the sign-up.

One of the things that the bill would provide is windows of opportunity for businesses with current existing relationships to make that connection with their customers. One of them is for 18 months in terms of a previous existing business relationship. The Bloc moved a motion to extend it to 24 months, which I opposed. I believe that 18 months is plenty of time for someone to get information from us. It is a long time period, being over a year and a half, but now it is two years and I think that is unfortunate.

However, once we have this law in place, there will be a process for those to be punished who are actually doing it. The way it will need to be done is through three regulatory agencies. The first is the CRTC, which will be involved in terms of investigating complaints.

We then have the Competition Bureau which will be responsible for the administrative monetary penalties, if there is an actual breach that has been confirmed by the CRTC. The fines can be up to $1 million for individuals and $10 million in all other cases. So there will be a recourse to show to those spamming powers out there that are doing this that there will be punishments, that it will be more than just a fine, that it will be significant for them to deal with and, hopefully, it will curb that behaviour.

The Privacy Commissioner will also be involved because sometimes our privacy rights are affected by spam. There have been a number of cases where spammers have used headliners that look like many banks' headliners and then, for example, people click thinking it is their own bank, but it turns out that it is a spammer collecting data and information from them. Sometimes that can be quite perilous. There have been cases where people have lost money thinking it was their own financial institution or a legitimate financial institution and they have provided access to some of their monetary resources. Unfortunately, that is why the Privacy Commissioner needs to be involved because it also will protect our personal privacy. A lot of people are concerned about that.

I think one of the reasons the bill will be strong is it would have those three regulatory agencies actively involved in maintaining the accountability of the actual bill.

Interestingly enough, there was a bit of a debate about whether this bill should deal with the telephone solicitation issue. It does not but at the same time it would give the minister a bit more ability to work on the do-not-call list. I hope the minister takes this up to fix some of the do-not-call list problems. One of the ones that is in there that this bill would prohibit is the issue of surveys. The government almost capitulated on this. I would like to thank those in the industry, Michael Geist and a number of other different individuals, who pointed out this giant loophole that we could drive a truck through, whereas if someone proposed or sent a survey to somebody it did not count as solicitation or spam and, hence, it would have actually avoided the whole regime. The government, at one point, looked like it had actually tabled an amendment on this but it ended up not tabling it. It backed down from that amendment.

Ironically, the Liberal Party picked it up and actually tried to move it but it was defeated when the chair overruled that. We were lucky that we did not have that. The one thing I hope will be cleaned up with the do-not-call list is the survey loophole that everybody knows about and which is hindering the capability of the bill. We did not actually have a section on that, so that gives the minister some flexibility to fix it and I hope that he takes me up on that suggestion.

It is also important to note that there was another issue in the bill that was defeated. It is important to recognize that because it is an issue that people are concerned about. In the original manifestations of the bill there was a provision that would have allowed companies to go onto our computers and seek information from that computer. If we had agreed to them being part of our Internet relationship, we would be consenting or allowing them to go onto our computer and access information and documents, and basically surf through our computer unknown to us.

That issue was taken off the table as well. There was great Internet discussion and blogging about this offensive piece of the legislation. I was happy to see that backed out as well. It is important because had that provision been there as well as the other provisions I have mentioned that were taken out, I do not know whether I could have supported this legislation because it would have weakened it so much. It would have become far weaker than even the do not call registry. It is very fortunate that we were able to get consensus and push that back.

As well, there were a couple of amendments that were interesting and I was rather curious as to how they came forward. We will see whether or not in the Senate they will be pushed forward again. One of them came from the Bloc and that was the extension of the time to actually opt out of an email subscription. The way it works is if I, for example, agree to receive an email and I have a relationship with a company or if someone is sending me that information, then I can opt out of that later on, by just sending an email that I do not want to continue this relationship. The way the legislation was written I would be taken off the list in 10 days. The Bloc moved a motion for it to be 30 days. The final part of the bill is 10 business days.

If we agree to an email through our bank or somewhere else, they will instantly start spamming or sending information. Once we agree, they start flying in. I have Aeroplan points, for example, from Air Canada and boy, that thing rings all the time with all kinds of stuff. I have agreed to that relationship and sometimes it is helpful, sometimes it is irritating, but I make that choice. To suggest that I want out of that and that it would take 30 days to get out of that is absolute nonsense, especially with the sophistication of some of the programs. Ten business days is a sufficient time to end that relationship. It is not burdensome at all especially when they have the capability of adding us in instantaneously when we agree to get on these lists.

I was puzzled about this and when it gets to the Senate we will see whether or not there is going to be another lobby effort either to kill the bill or to weaken it some more. If it is weakened even more, Canadians will be upset because they are seeking a solution to this. As well, it is important to reinforce the issues of how serious spam is. Spam is used in crime. Spam is also used in an organized way that affects the whole Internet capacity of the system. We just have to look at some of the botnets. These are zombie computers where specific programs are written to go in and then turn our computers into a generator off spam or email spam for someone else who controls a whole grid of them.

I am going to wrap up by saying that I will be supporting the bill. We want to see this happen as soon as possible. I am glad it has finally come to this chamber. I was disappointed it took so long because we worked really hard at committee to get it here faster. I am concerned it will have some impact in the Senate. We will see whether the senators are going to stand hard on the bill and make it happen quickly for Canadians to ensure we get some real results.

Consumer Product Safety

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader should encourage the Liberal senators to pass Bill C-6, the Canada consumer product safety act. This bill is currently in a Senate committee where Liberal senators have been delaying clause by clause consideration since early November.

Without Bill C-6, our government does not have the authority to order a product recall when companies fail to act on safety concerns. Without Bill C-6, we do not have the tools needed to protect Canadians and their families.

The Liberal leader should encourage the Liberal senators to follow the fine example of all MPs in this House who passed it unanimously.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, as chair of the health committee, I tabled a report back from committee urging Liberal senators to pass Bill C-6. This bill is about protecting Canadian children from consumer products, such as cribs, which have been found to be dangerous.

The Liberal senators have been delaying the passage of this important piece of legislation and keep finding reasons why they cannot proceed to clause by clause.

Could the Minister of Health please tell us why it is so crucial to pass this legislation?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, again, our current legislation is not adequate under surveillance. The surveillance system is weak. There is no mandatory reporting from the industry to us whenever there is an incident with any product that it sells.

We rely on consumers to provide information to us when incidents happen. We investigate every one of those incidents and make a determination on how to respond, which is why we recognize it is not adequate. This is why we introduced Bill C-6. This is why the Liberal senators need to pass that legislation so we can protect the health and—

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health concerning Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, November 25, 2009, the committee recommends that the Standing Committee on Health report to the House its opinion that Bill C-6 is necessary to fill regulatory gaps and allow the government the power to issue recalls, and that the current framework for product recalls does not allow for timely and consistent action to protect Canadians. Due to the committee extending its hours in order to ensure the timely passage of Bill C-6, as well as the House of Commons unanimously passing this important piece of long-overdue legislation, this House should strongly encourage members of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to act responsibly and in the interests of the safety and welfare of all Canadians to pass this crucial piece of legislation without delay.