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.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Right. Okay.

When you get a bill that is reintroduced from one Parliament to the next, does it get re-costed? In asking this question, the bill that comes to my mind--although it's not one that's under consideration here, it's just one that I've followed with interest--is Bill C-6, an act respecting the safety of consumer products, which came back as Bill C-36. I think I have it backwards. It started off as Bill C-36 and wound up as Bill C-6. But at any rate, for a bill like that, would there be a re-costing that would go on?

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

It is true that when we were studying Bill C-6, some witnesses appeared before us to discuss that particular aspect. During the health committee's work last spring, we spent only one meeting examining the whole issue of nanotechnology, its growing use and the repercussions this new technology can have on human health. This is definitely something that needs to be examined further in committee. I did not get the impression that any parliamentarians, from any of the parties, were against the idea of examining these matters further.

Of course, when we were studying Bill C-6, some people expressed certain concerns that were not addressed in the bill, but at that stage, it was important to update the 40-year-old legislation. So this bill updates the legislation. The committee and this Parliament will have every opportunity, I have no doubt, to make other improvements through other means. For instance, the member mentioned counterfeit products. There is also the question of labelling, in order to ensure that when consumers purchase a product, they know exactly what is in it. I think all parliamentarians agree on that issue.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite and the minister have failed to acknowledge is that the problems pointed out by the Liberal senators on the previous Bill C-6 have been adopted in the renewed legislation, Bill C-36. If it had not been for the Liberal senators there would still be these gaps of not understanding that products in people's homes would still be at risk, even if they were stored for personal use.

On the idea of permission to get into people's houses, there is no question that Bill C-36 is better than Bill C-6 only because of the scrutiny of the other chamber.

The minister can wave her hands all she wants, but she has to acknowledge that she accepted the changes that were proposed by the Liberal senators.

In speaking with Liberal colleagues in the Senate, we have applauded them for their due diligence and the fact that the government is taking most of their recommendations with respect to the Privacy Act as well. It would behoove the government to thank the other chamber for its due diligence in making the bill better than it was before. This is the best of Parliament. We can protect Canadians and the companies that are producing these goods even better because of the good work of the other chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here today in support of C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

It is an honour for me to speak on behalf of my party, since the government has finally listened to the questions raised by the stakeholders and by parliamentarians and has created a bill that will protect Canadian consumers without causing harm to Canadian companies.

The point I want to focus on today is that, by taking a quick look at the evolution of Bill C-36, Bill C-6 and others, we can see that in some cases the government said one thing and did another. I wanted to point out some of the flaws we encountered in the development of this bill. The Minister of Health was publicly outraged at the end of last year, and assumed that this bill, then called C-6, would held up by the Senate. I completely disagree with that claim, since I think that many of the suggestions made by the Senate to amend Bill C-6 were incorporated into Bill C-36. That seems a bit odd to me.

As Liberals, we recognize the value of the Senate, which acts as a chamber of sober second thought. We appreciate the Senate's analysis of this bill.

I too recognize that the senators' due diligence identified some problems with the legislation that we in the House of Commons had missed. Again, I believe it is important for the government to recognize that indeed in this second, Bill C-36, they have incorporated virtually all of the problems that were identified in the Senate and that we will perceive.

It is very rare that one is provided, as a member of Parliament, exactly the discourse, the content that one wants to be able to deliver, and it is on that basis that I am pleased to read to the House today the letter sent to the hon. minister on October 6, 2010, by our leader in the Senate, Senator Jim Cowan:

Dear Minister [of Health]:

I am writing concerning several comments that you made on Thursday, September 30, during an interview with Evan Solomon on the CBC Newsworld program, Power & Politics.

That interview concerned the cross-border recall of more than 10 million Fisher-Price toys. Mr. Solomon asked why your Government has not moved faster with legislation to protect Canadians. You replied:

“As it is right now, we don't have the right tools to do massive recalls of this nature, which is what we've been saying for the last year, two years, that we need the tools to respond.... This has been an issue for us in terms of recalls of cribs even last year. That was held up at the Senate. And so in this -- in this sitting I am working with the House Leader to move this legislation forward.”

I was surprised to hear you blame the Senate for your Government's slow action to protect Canadians, and especially Canadian children, from dangerous consumer products.

In fact, Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, was not “held up” at the Senate. It was studied in each of the House of Commons and the Senate for almost exactly the same amount of time: six months. It was amended and received third reading in the Senate on December 15, 2009. There has been ample time between December 15 and today for those amendments to have been dealt with and the legislation brought into force. However, on December 30, 2009, [the] Prime Minister...chose to prorogue Parliament, killing the bill.

Bill C-6 was highly controversial legislation. As you are well aware, a number of Canadians were deeply concerned about certain provisions contained in the bill as passed by the House of Commons. They considered that the bill went too far, for example in granting relatively low-level government officials the power to enter any private home where a consumer product is “stored”...in order to “verify compliance” with the Act or regulations--which could include verifying compliance with labelling requirements. There was concern that the bill allowed inspectors to enter or pass over private property without any liability for damage they negligently caused.

These provisions seem particularly strange in view of your Government's recent position on the supposedly intrusive nature of the mandatory long-form census. I suspect most Canadians would consider an inspector demanding the right to enter their home more intrusive than completing a census form.

The Senate did its constitutionally mandated job. We closely scrutinized the provisions of the bill, listened to the views of those experts and other interested Canadians who took the time to come before our Committee to testify about the bill, and considered various amendments to address the concerns and improve the bill. In the end, the Senate voted to pass the bill with several amendments.

The amendments were serious, honest efforts to make the bill the best it could be for Canadians. Under our parliamentary system, the bill was returned to the House of Commons with a message about our amendments. We fully expected the House to consider our amendments on their merits, and then accept or reject them, in whole or in part.

It was well within the Government's power to recall the House of Commons for this--in the past, these kinds of messages have even been addressed in one day. The bill could have been passed by both Houses and brought into force well before Christmas.

The imminent holiday season was an issue you yourself had raised. When the bill was still before the Senate, you told Canadians in a press conference--

This is a letter I am reading. It is not you, Mr. Speaker.

--that the bill was needed before Christmas if Canadian children were to be protected against potentially dangerous toys. You said, “Canadian mothers and parents should be worried. They should be worried that this legislation is not there to protect them.” Yet your Government did not recall the House of Commons to consider the Senate’s amendments before Christmas. As a result, nothing further happened, and Canadians remained without the added protections of the bill.

As we all know, [the Prime Minister] chose to prorogue Parliament on December 30, 2009, causing this bill--along with many others--to die on the Order Paper. Evidently the Prime Minister did not see the need to protect Canadian children as the priority issue that you had expressed in your press conferences.

I was then completely surprised when you failed to move promptly upon Parliament’s return to reintroduce any bill to address this serious issue. Indeed, you waited until June 9, 2010 even to table new Bill C-36 in Parliament--and that is where this matter has sat, at first reading. To date, you have not even brought the bill forward for debate.

This is, again, a letter dated October 6.

As a result of these actions by your Government, it has now been almost ten months since the Senate passed Bill C-6, and the bill remains at first reading in the House of Commons. Let us be clear and honest: your Government’s inaction has delayed the bill longer than the study in either the House of Commons or the Senate. Yet you continue to tell Canadians that it is the Senate that held up this legislation.

Such false assertions are surely beneath the dignity of your high office.

That would be the Minister of Health.

The letter goes on:

Once again your Government has sought to avoid responsibility for its actions--in this case, the serious failure to position the Government to be able to protect Canadians from threats to the safety of Canadian children.

In the interview with Evan Solomon, you even tried to avoid responsibility for your department’s failure to adequately inform Canadians about the recalled toys. Mr. Solomon told you of the problems he encountered when trying to find the necessary information on the Health Canada website. He contrasted the United States Government’s website, which listed the recall as breaking news in a banner headline. He asked you why, when you know about recalls of consumer products like the children’s toys, your Government does not get the information right out to consumers. You replied:

“We have an outdated legislation. We have difficulty getting the information to investigate when incidents do happen. But, you know, we're hoping with the passing of this legislation that we'll be able to make--implement the new legislation to make the necessary improvements to protect the health and safety of Canadians.”

In fact, the poor quality of information alerts on the Health Canada website relating to this recall had nothing to do with Bill C-36. Indeed, when my office checked the website on Monday, several days after the Solomon interview, the website had been changed. The recall notice was now prominently displayed on a banner headline, on the home page, with ready access provided to more information. Legislatively, nothing had changed since your interview; the outdated legislation proved no constraint on more effective use of the Internet. Why, then, did you tell Canadians that the fault lay with the outdated legislation (whose timely amendment had been “held up” by the Senate)?

I should perhaps not be surprised. In a press conference on December 3, 2009, you said that under the amendments that had been passed by the Senate Committee that studied the bill, “a child, a baby has to die before we can do a recall”. Minister, this too was a false statement. No amendment passed by the Senate Committee required any Canadian – baby or adult – to die before there could be a recall. I suspect that this was little more than fear-mongering, designed solely to pressure the Senate. Yet you were prepared to strike fear in the hearts of Canadians with a false allegation of this magnitude. As a Parliamentarian and as a parent, I must tell you that I was shocked by what I consider to be a flagrantly inappropriate use of your office.

As Minister of Health, you have a heavy burden of responsibility. Canadians have entrusted you with powers and duties to safeguard their health and safety. Partisan politics and gamesmanship have no place when speaking to Canadians about potential threats to their infants and children.

I noted with interest that your new bill, Bill C-36, in fact incorporates several of the changes that were the subject of Senate amendments in December. I was happy to see that despite your voracious attacks on our amendments, upon reflection you agreed that the concerns we raised indeed had merit, and changed your bill accordingly.

However, I was surprised that your new bill did not incorporate any of the so-called “technical” amendments to the bill that were passed by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. These amendments corrected a number of errors that Committee members found in the bill.

For example, the bill contained a number of provisions that required the Minister to table documents in both the House of Commons and the Senate. This is a technical impossibility, as no Minister is simultaneously a member of both Houses. The Senate Committee corrected this mistake. To my surprise, your new bill, Bill C-36, contains the same error. I assume that amendments will be required once again to correct this mistake which unfortunately will no doubt further delay the legislation.

Canadians need a new Consumer Product Safety Act. This legislation has been in preparation for a number years, beginning under the Liberal government. This should not be a partisan issue, but rather, a matter of parliamentarians of all political parties and both Houses working together constructively to ensure the best law for Canadians. This is the best of our Canadian parliamentary tradition. We in the Senate sought to do our part, working to improve your proposed legislation for the benefit of all Canadians. Evidently you agreed with some of the flaws we discovered, and your latest bill incorporates changes to address them.

I look forward to your correcting the record, and finally accepting responsibility, as a senior Cabinet Minister in the [Conservative] Government, for your actions. The real reason Canadians still have outdated legislation on consumer product safety is not because your government's bill was “held up” by the Senate. Rather, it is because your Government has failed to place the necessary priority on this bill.

I hope that with the recent massive recall of children's toys, your Government will realize the importance of this issue and bring C-36 forward for second reading debate and scrutiny. If amendments are proposed, whether in the House of Commons or the Senate, I hope you will now consider them seriously and on their merits. The best interests of Canadian children is the goal we all share. The health and safety of Canadian children is surely too important to use as a pawn in a political chess game.

Since the minister has received this letter, we now have this urgent debate to bring this forward.

I thank Senator Cowan for his extraordinarily important letter, which I have now read into record of the House of Commons. As the critic for democratic renewal, the Conservative government's ongoing reluctance and contempt for any proper consultation on any bill and its continued track record of a so-called consultation being an information session with one-way information going out to people who can take it or leave it has again delayed much needed legislation.

We need the government to understand that consultation can prevent all of these problems and that means not writing people off as contempt for special interest groups. Civil society has huge expertise in these matters and it would be very much more efficacious to go and talk to those people before the Conservatives present such shoddy legislation.

The other embarrassing piece of information is that, although the government said this bill was a useful part of its product safety strategy, it took the government six months to reinstate the bill after prorogation. Once again, it appears that the process the government described does not make sense. The other thing that seems strange to me is the fact that this bill would make an unprecedented change to the state's powers over citizens.

This bill would authorize searches of private property with no prior evidence of criminal wrongdoing and includes the power to seize property without a court ruling. This measure could only come from a government that ignored virtually all stakeholder recommendations and repeatedly opposed the long form census, claiming that it wanted to protect individual privacy.

The government's refusal to use the long form census is all the more embarrassing given some of the provisions in this bill. Liberals believe that the existing legislation to protect Canadians from dangerous imported goods is no longer appropriate. I am pleased to note that the Minister of Health finally has the power to unilaterally recall products that pose a risk to Canadians' health and safety.

Yet again, it is so sad that the government continues to campaign instead of govern. This week it has come to our attention that yet another huge hole in the protection of Canadians has been left totally not dealt with by the government.

That being said, all Liberals believe that we must ask the Conservative government to do extraordinary things and close the loopholes in the system. This week, our thoughts are with Olivia Pratten and her mother, Shirley, who are fighting to end sperm donor anonymity and prevent the destruction of records.

Since 2004, Assisted Human Reproduction Canada, an organization whose mandate is to apply regulations that do not even exist, has been in control.

Section 2 of the act has principles that are hugely important in terms of the health and well-being of children born as a result of AHR technologies, ensuring that the women who are significantly affected by these technologies have free and informed consent.

It is absolutely unacceptable that the government continues to leave these huge holes in the protection of the health and safety of Canadians and their children, particularly women. It is inexcusable that the government has wasted huge amounts of money on the reproductive technology agency in Vancouver, which has no law, no regulations to enforce, and that women are left completely unprotected because the government refuses to govern. It refuses to deal with the tough issues and hides behind a Supreme Court appeal for one tiny part of the law, one tiny part of the protection of Canadian women and their children. It has refused to act.

The federal government's excuse in response to the Province of Quebec and the Supreme Court is ridiculous. It cited only a tiny part of the regulations. In fact, the government did not review the bill within three years, as required. The Conservative government must acknowledge that, even though an issue may be controversial, that is no excuse for failing to act.

Today, we will finally get work on consumer protection with the all party agreement on Bill C-36. However, we now call upon the government to act on so many other issues, where it wraps itself in a constitutional cocoon, pretends that the health and safety of Canadians is not its issue and sits and does nothing, while Canadians, particularly women and children, are left without protection.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House for third reading of Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

I know, from discussions with my colleagues, that we all recognize the need to modernize product safety legislation in this country.

The Hazardous Products Act is 40-year-old legislation that was developed at a time when consumer product marketplaces were very different. At the time, a greater number of products were produced domestically. Today, many of the products available for sale to Canadians are imported, supply chains are complex and innovation drives rapid product change and development.

Our current legislation requires us to develop regulations and prohibitions as a basis for ensuring product safety. Because of this, Health Canada has remained focused on particular products or product classes that are reviewed through a targeted sampling and testing program. New regulations continue to be developed to address risks as they emerge.

The regulatory process is a lengthy one. It leaves us with few tools to quickly address serious product safety issues as they emerge. My department has not had the tools to act quickly to prevent product-related incidents. In Canada, we have a post-market consumer product safety regime, which means that we do not certify new products coming into the market. A post-market regime makes sense for consumer products and helps ensure a free flow of goods but it demands a modern legislative framework.

Where we have regulations in place, products must meet the requirements they describe, but there are thousands of products that are not regulated. We do not have the mandatory incident reporting in Canada. There is currently no obligation for industry to report product-related problems. We have no authority at this time to require testing or that test results be provided to ensure compliance with our legislation. When we do identify a serious risk with a product, we do not have the powers of mandatory recall.

While it is true that we have a very co-operative industry in Canada, an industry that strives to be compliant, the fact that we cannot rely on mandatory powers of recall frequently requires us to undertake lengthy negotiations for volunteer recall, even if the severity of the situation demands swift action.

My colleagues in this chamber know that this legislation is close to my heart. I have travelled throughout Canada to discuss product safety with parents and stakeholders. I have travelled internationally to promote our work on product safety with foreign jurisdictions. I am a member of a government that recognizes the need to increase funding for product safety and put our money where our mouth is with the food and consumer product safety action plan.

Through the food and consumer safety action plan, we are doubling the number of inspectors throughout Canada. We are increasing our funding for outreach to ensure that industry understands its obligations and that consumers have the information they need to make good product choices.

We are also building an efficient system to support the requirements in this legislation for mandatory reporting of serious product-related incidents and we are increasing our work in the development of standards. Standards will be an important tool in the future for ensuring product safety and for helping industry to address risk.

These tools are putting us on a strong footing for a system built on active prevention, targeted oversight and rapid response. They will support the hard work that has already been done by Health Canada in the areas of product safety and bring us up to date, not only with what is required in the modern global marketplace, but also with the product safety regimes of our major trading partners. This legislation is an important part of that plan.

What would this legislation help to achieve? The proposed act focuses on three areas: active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response.

I will first speak to the active prevention. The proposed consumer products safety act would introduce a general prohibition against the manufacture, importation, advertisement or sale of consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety. The new legislation would allow Health Canada to address consumer products in Canada that pose an unreasonable danger to the health or safety of the public.

When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, we discussed the emerging problem of cadmium in children's jewellery and examples of how the general prohibitions might be used right now if they were in place. Health Canada has worked hard to address product safety in Canada. The work that has been done to help ensure that children's products are safe is one of the best examples of this.

As many of my colleagues in the House know, Health Canada currently has some of the strictest limits in the world on the use of lead in children's products. It is a toxic if ingested. My department regularly enforces these lead limits, and officials are also on alert for the presence of other heavy metals in children's products. That is how we discovered the presence of cadmium in children's jewellery.

Cadmium is also toxic. Because it is cheap material, it is being used to make children's jewellery. If we could be certain that these items were only going to be worn by young people there might not be a problem. However, as many of us know from our own children, it can be a challenge to keep items out of their mouth. When swallowed, cadmium can cause a range of ill health effects.

Because there are currently no regulated limits on the use of cadmium in children's jewellery, the department has exercised the limits of its authority under the Hazardous Products Act by releasing advisories to alert parents about these items and by asking the industry for a voluntary ban on its use.

It is worthwhile to consider how we might be managing this emerging problem with cadmium if the Canada consumer product safety act were in place. The knowledge that under certain circumstances cadmium causes an unreasonable danger would provide us with the basis to use the general prohibition that is included in this legislation. Our inspectors could be working right now to remove unsafe cadmium-filled children's jewellery from stores. The department would not necessarily have to wait up to two years for the development of regulations in order to have the ability to act. We could be issuing recalls for these products if we found that industry was not willing to act swiftly on a voluntary basis. The general prohibition is an important provision for helping to prevent consumer product incidents before they occur.

In terms of active prevention, another important provision in this legislation is the updated fines. Compliance and enforcement would be strengthened through maximum fines of up to $5 million for some of the worst offences or more for offences committed knowingly or recklessly.

The current fines under the Hazardous Products Act could easily be perceived as simply a cost of doing business. The new maximum fines are a step up from the current maximum penalty of $1 million. They will be an important deterrent and they will bring us into step with other major trading partners.

What about targeted oversight? Targeted oversight is especially important in the context of products where the risk may not yet be fully understood or that pose the greatest potential hazard to the public.

The proposed act would give the minister of health the authority to order a manufacturer or importer to conduct safety tests and to submit results to the ministry in order to verify compliance with the act. It would also require suppliers to notify Health Canada of defects and of serious product-related incidents. These would include near miss incidents where injury has been averted.

Let us consider cribs. At the moment, as many colleagues know, my officials are consulting on whether we should ban traditional drop-side cribs in this country. We have developed this proposal and we are talking to Canadians about it because we know from mandatory reporting in the United States that these cribs can cause safety risks.

Our colleagues in the United States have been very generous with information they gather through their mandatory reporting. They have worked co-operatively with us on recalls and they assisted us in determining whether problematic products have been sold in Canada. We work with them on a daily basis.

We look forward to having access to our own incident data generated as a result of the provisions for mandatory reporting. This is a provision that will be critical for us as we transition to product safety programs built on the strategic intelligence it generates.

The proposed legislation also includes measures to allow for a rapid response to problems once they are identified. We must not forget that we always hope to avoid problems and prevent injuries related to consumer products, and that is why we are investing in active prevention and targeted oversight. However, we have a post-market regime for consumer products in Canada and we have almost as many entry points for products into this country as we have products. They are coming to Canada from around the world.

Under the proposed new act, Health Canada would be able to move quickly and decisively when a problem occurs. This would be done through the ability to order recalls of unsafe consumer products and by requiring suppliers to maintain accurate records to enable quick tracking of products.

Health Canada will work closely with industry to ensure this legislation is understood and properly implemented. Workshops and other information-sharing opportunities will be used to promote awareness of the new provisions and requirements.

Through Bill C-36, our government is demonstrating its commitment to consumer product safety. We are demonstrating our desire to meet Canadians' expectations by proposing action Canadians want and need.

The bill before us today reflects a cumulative wisdom of both Houses of Parliament and extensive long-term consultation on the part of Health Canada. When it came before this House previously as Bill C-6, the standing committee heard from government witnesses and from 33 other witnesses representing over 24 organizations. In total, five separate sessions were devoted to review and discuss former Bill C-6, two of which were extended. In those sessions, all voices were heard and all opinions were closely considered. The results of the committee's hard work was an amended bill that reflected the underlying policy intent of the bill, as well as other key aspects of concern to some witnesses.

Our government's amendments included delivering on a commitment to make it crystal clear that natural health products would not be regulated by this act. The opposition amendments address two key areas: consultation and information-sharing. When the government reintroduced the bill, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, in June of this year, it retained those amendments.

In its previous form as Bill C-6, Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, it was subject to considerable scrutiny in other places. Our colleagues were concerned that perhaps the legislation provided too broad a scope for inspector powers. Before we reintroduced this legislation last June, we worked hard to analyze those concerns.

Of the six changes incorporated into Bill C-36 before its reintroduction in June, three spoke to concerns about the perceived scope of inspector powers and four spoke to concerns raised by opposition senators. We removed the words “and they are not liable for doing so” from the provisions that allow inspectors to pass over private property. We defined storage so that it would be clear that it would not apply to goods stored by individuals for personal use.

In Bill C-36, the minister is now made expressly accountable for the authority for recalls and other orders. And, in responding to concerns about the review of orders, the bill now sets out a 30-day review period.

The government also adjusted the legislation to improve the wording in the bill, “provisions for an advisory body”, in order to clarify what is meant by public advice. Last, the government added the prohibition on BPA and baby bottles.

We heard from colleagues in the upper chamber that these changes largely address their concerns, but after the legislation was introduced in June, they remained concerned that some of the technical amendments they had made to the bill, when it was before them as Bill C-6, had not been incorporated into Bill C-36.

We want this legislation to pass, and so we have again worked hard to address these concerns. That is why the government introduced four amendments at clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36.

Some colleagues have asked that the requirements of the Privacy Act be made explicit in this legislation. We have done this with the amendment to clause 15.

We have also incorporated a series of technical amendments to address and distinguish the two Houses of Parliament. Some of these amendments address the unique nature of each place and the fact that their committees are structured differently. We have amended clause 38 to address those concerns.

We have also amended clause 39 to ensure that a timely rationale is provided in cases where certain regulations are made without being laid before Parliament.

We have amended clause 60 to address the concerns raised in the other place that clause 60 lacked clarity about the role of the minister in reviewing a notice of violation. This change required a further technical amendment to subclause 56(1).

Given these changes and the committee's previous close scrutiny of this legislation, I am pleased to see the bill reported back to this House with only a small number of amendments.

It is my sincere hope that this House will pass Bill C-36, and that it will reflect the efforts many people have made to address all the concerns. As I stand at third reading today, I feel optimistic that we will soon have dramatically improved consumer product safety in this country.

As I speak today, I remain hopeful that this House, in its wisdom, will pass this legislation. I am hopeful that this legislation will rapidly become law. It is my wish that this bill be afforded a smooth passage.

I would like to address one last issue pertaining to this legislation. It is critically important to make the distinction, as this legislation does, between administrative proceedings and proceedings in the criminal courts. Under the administrative monetary penalty system, a person or supplier that has been found to be out of compliance with the act or regulations could be issued an order to take an appropriate corrective measure. If that person or supplier does not take the appropriate action, he or she may be subject to a notice of violation. If a notice is issued, the person or supplier will be subject to the monetary penalties under the administrative monetary penalty system.

This system encourages compliance and addresses non-compliance with orders for recall and other corrective measures. These measures can be an effective tool for gaining cooperation from regulated industry. Violations can result in an administrative process that is more responsive and less expensive than prosecution in the criminal courts. A criminal record would not result from a violation.

I will be watching the progress of this bill closely. I will continue to meet with parents and stakeholders to talk about the importance of having a consumer product safety regime. I set high standards on officials to develop effective, efficient, reliable systems to support the new provisions in the bill.

As I wrap up my remarks, I would like to pause to consider the hard work that has gone into this legislation and into getting it to this point in the legislative process. The parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Oshawa, has worked tirelessly to support the goal of passing the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. To him I extend my thanks.

I would also like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Health for their hard work on this bill. Every member of the Standing Committee on Health voiced support for this legislation, and demonstrated this support by making the bill a priority and focusing on its swift passage.

I therefore want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their support, collaborative approach, and shared concern for the safety of consumer products in Canada. I also want to thank all the Canadians and stakeholders I have met who share my desire for new product safety legislation and the many benefits it will bring. I look forward to their ongoing support for bringing this bill through the full legislative process to full implementation.

To conclude, I want to stress that Canada's current consumer product legislation is 40 years old. We have fallen behind other jurisdictions. An update is overdue and the bill before us today benefits from a wide diversity of experts' views.

Canadians can be assured that the government—

[Michel Arnold, Executive Director, Option consommateurs]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members.

This is the third time that Option consommateurs has appeared before you. We are here to support Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. As was said earlier, the present Hazardous Products Act dates back to 1969 and lacks the tools to provide adequate consumer protection in 2010.

As the minister said this morning, the world has changed since the Hazardous Products Act was passed 40 years ago. The products that Canadians buy today, toys in particular, come from around the world. By adapting the legislative framework for consumer product safety to the realities of the 21st century, Canada is aligning with its main trade partners, such as the United States and Europe. It is also providing the government with tools to order product recalls, combat counterfeiting and guarantee the quality assurance of products sold in Canada in order to increase the trust of Canadian consumers.

Thanks to Bill C-36, which incidentally constitutes an improvement to Bill C-6, stakeholders, from manufacturers to merchants, will be responsible for the safety of the products they market in Canada.

This new act will also enable the Minister of Health to intervene quickly for the purpose of withdrawing hazardous products from the market through better monitoring and quality control by the manufacturer, wherever products are sold.

In addition, the clauses concerning information disclosure are essential to enable the minister to react quickly where there is a danger to Canadians.

The obligation to inform authorities about hazardous products is an important aspect for improving market monitoring and risk management.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

I think that's an extremely good difference. I think any time we can be proactive rather than reactive we are on the right track. I'm glad to hear that. I think that's very important.

I know that when we had the debate on the former Bill C-6 there were some who were concerned about the scope or the reach of the powers that this bill would give Health Canada. I just wondered if you could comment a bit about that and what you feel about the powers that Health Canada will have under this new Bill C-36.

I think one of the other issues when we talked about powers was the inspectors. Perhaps you could touch a bit on that as well. Do you have any concerns that inspectors might have too much power under this new bill?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here today, Minister.

This really is paradoxical. You're telling us that it's time to pass this bill, that it has to be done quickly and that time is running out, but the government has dragged its feet. In November 2006, the Auditor General tabled a report revealing that the Government of Canada knew the risks to consumers as a result of a lack of financing. In 2007, the Bloc Québécois suggested that the minister take immediate action and tighten those safety requirements for hazardous products. In December 2007, you announced an action plan to ensure the safety of food products. One year after the auditor's report, you tabled Bill C-52, one and a half years later. Then, in September, your Prime Minister decided to call an election despite the fact, as you will recall, that there was an act providing for elections on fixed dates. In deciding to call an election, the Prime Minister automatically killed Bill C-52.

You came back and tabled Bill C-6 in January 2009, and that took us up to the prorogation that the Prime Minister requested in December 2009, as a result of which the bill was derailed again.

Minister—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation at second reading.

My colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes mentioned that this was the third time he was able to speak to this bill in the House. I have to say I am just so happy to be able to speak to a bill that is not about locking people up and putting them in jail for crimes that have been unreported.

We have been waiting a long time for this bill, as we have heard. As we have also heard, previous versions of this bill have been killed twice by prorogation. Frankly there has been an inordinate delay getting it through first and second reading here in the House since we returned from prorogation in March.

Considering it is the government's own legislation, one has to ask why we have waited so long. Again this week, yet again, we saw another recall of children's products, this time a recall of 11 million toys by Mattel. This follows recalls on children's drugs, cribs and drinking glasses, and the list goes on and on.

Each time this happens, consumer advocates call for reliable product safety information and a law that gets these unsafe products off the shelves. Ideally, dangerous products would not actually get on the shelves in the first place.

My colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes mentioned that the minister has been silent on this issue, not even speaking about this issue in the House until October, but actually I would like to correct that record because we have been asking questions in question period, waiting, asking when this will happen, asking when we will get to actually move this forward to committee. She has answered those questions, although I do not think she said the words “Bill C-36”.

We are happy we are here. Finally we are here. I do think it also needs mentioning that the Liberals have been asleep at the switch for 12 years on this issue. By 2005-06, at the end of the Liberals' decade of missed opportunity to improve product safety in Canada, more than 40% of recalls were ordered as a direct result not of us but of U.S.-initiated action. The Liberals were happy to promote and applaud corporate trade but not to police it.

The legislation this bill replaces is part I of the Hazardous Products Act that was enacted in 1969. I will say that again, 1969. To say that this bill is a long time in coming is an understatement. In 41 years technologies have of course changed. The nature of business has changed. The ethics of production have advanced. We need legislation that reflects the realties of a globalized world, which aims to be health conscious and also to establish a more equitable society.

It goes without saying that dangerous products touch the lives of people who are socio-economically disadvantaged more than the rest of society. Cheap products rely on cheaper manufacturing processes, and they are wreaking havoc in the lives of people who cannot afford to make better choices, who are poorly positioned to deal with the health consequences and potentially the lost wages that are due to time off work to care for loved ones who are hurt.

Product safety should not be the right of the rich. It goes very much to equality principles and it is a central piece of moving towards economic justice.

Unsurprisingly, plans to revamp product safety legislation have developed some resistance from industry and from importers due to high costs and the perceived intrusion into their design and manufacturing processes. However, the onus should be on them. Consumer product safety is the cost of doing business in Canada.

The safety of Canadians and particularly the safety of children cannot be balanced against corporate costs. Manufacturers and importers must prove that their products are safe. It is unacceptable to allow products to be negligently introduced onto the market in the absence of much-needed and precise enforcement tools.

We cannot allow tort law to be the enforcement tool, because court remedies may come too late, as consumers or their family members will have already been injured. There may not be an adequate compensation system through tort law that is available for the injuries suffered, and certainly not for the emotional trauma that arises in the worst case scenarios.

We need to catch things before they happen. In reality, strong product safety laws are good for companies because they dissuade them from going down a path that may have widespread consequences to them later.

Product safety laws protect both the health of the nation and the economy. Therefore, I am happy to note that Bill C-36 in its current form contains many of the amendments the NDP pushed for in its predecessor, Bill C-6. For example, the bill would exempt natural health products from its purview. The NDP was proud to support the natural health product industry by advocating for an exemption with Bill C-6. Natural health products contribute to the health and well-being of Canadians and play an important role in Canada's health care system.

I note that other NDP concerns have been addressed. For example, a clause that indicated inspectors were not liable for entering private property has been removed and the inspectors can no longer order a person to take measures for non-compliance. Only the minister can do that.

There are some improvements that can be made to this bill and the NDP looks forward to addressing these concerns at committee. The NDP consumer advocate, the member for Sudbury, has been working hard to identify potential improvements to product safety in Canada and I will outline some of these proposals for the House.

It is worth mentioning that protection is given to tobacco products under Bill C-36. These products have been given a permanent statutory exemption and only the propensity for ignition is included in the act's regulatory framework.

Many stakeholders, including the Canadian Cancer Society and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, have pointed out that this is a major failing in the legislation. In April 2009, when the bill was known as Bill C-6, the Canadian Cancer Society submitted a formal request that the permanent exclusion of tobacco products from the act be deleted in order to improve the overall health of Canadians.

There is also an issue of whether there will be adequate resources to enforce the legislation. We cannot allow the bill to exist without the adequate tools for enforcement. The bill implies a more proactive and aggressive approach to product safety, which is completely out of character with past government performance. Therefore, the NDP is considering an amendment to the bill to hold the government responsible for maintaining an adequate inspection capacity and staff to process, investigate and respond to complaints.

Tied to this is the need for stiffer punitive financial penalties. Industry monitoring shows that stiffer penalties improve product safety. Unfortunately, while the Hazardous Products Safety Act already contains fines of up to $1 million for violating its provisions, these fines are rarely imposed, something that we really need to work on at the enforcement end. It is essential that the government change this trend and adequately and consistently enforce the act.

The government also has to get serious about establishing clear and consistent rules for what constitutes a danger. This cannot be allowed to remain as a subjective judgment. We really need a test about what is a danger and how we will decide what is a danger. It is important not just for consumers, but for the industry as well. We need to ensure that industry understands what its obligations are.

Also in the world of enforcement, we need a better system for filing public complaints and the creation of a database that will track product safety issues. This is what the U.S. is moving toward and we need to follow suit. We have an opportunity now not just to make the Hazardous Products Safety Act better, but to be bold, visionary and move forward, not just catch up to our friends around world but maybe even surpass them when it comes to product safety. Right now a product can sometimes be on the market for more than 10 years before a recall happens.

As an example of that kind of delay, the most recent Fisher-Price recall involves products that were on the market for five years. The longer the delay, the less these products will be able to be recalled. In fact, only 10% to 15% of recalled products are ever recovered. That is a shockingly low statistic. This means we need to ensure that the public gets the information when a product poses a danger to people's health through regular announcements that a recall is in effect and to the widest possible audience.

Bill C-36 also focuses on the back end of production, mostly manufacturing, but the vast majority of product safety issues are at the front end with design. Product safety issues result because of design flaws. We need the tools that will catch these flaws before a product goes to a manufacturing plant. Design is so important. Better design leads to fewer accidents and fewer injuries. One way to improve the entire production process is to ensure that third party testing is mandatory, that it is consistent and that it is utilized throughout the entire production process.

We have also heard concerns that Bill C-36 lacks a formal independent review board. An appeal to the board of review under the hazardous products safety act is like an appeal to court. Bill C-36 does not have a review board and these kinds of procedural safeguards.

Currently the wording of the act suggests that reviews of decisions would be made by other Health Canada officers who were not part of the original investigation. Frankly, that is not quite far enough removed. There needs to be some indication of independence. The reviews really need to be done by third parties when a property owner asks for a review of an inspector's order. However, that review is not conducted by a board of review with court powers to ensure a fair hearing. It is only fair to think about it that way and to have those sorts of arm's-length procedures put in place.

In summary, we are pleased that the government has finally introduced this bill. I am getting some smiles from my colleagues on this side of the House. We are pleased that it has been moved for debate, I will note finally. We are also very happy to support it so it gets to committee. The NDP is very much looking forward to discussion of the bill at committee.

[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—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, survey results show that the vast majority of Canadians believe that a product is safe simply because it is available on the market. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case as children are particularly vulnerable to product-related injuries. In fact, there are more than 18,000 annual emergency room visits for children as a result of product-related injuries.

As well, recalls on child products have significantly increased in recent years from 28 voluntary recalls in 2006 to 118 in 2008. That is a 235% increase over just three years. Just this last week, one company recalled more than 10 million tricycles, high chairs and toys over safety concerns. The trikes have a protruding key that has caused 10 reported injuries. The high chairs have seven reports of children hurt on pegs on the chairs' rear legs. The infant toys have faulty parts that pose a choking hazard.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to support Bill C-36, formerly Bill C-6, the Canada consumer product safety act, on which our health committee worked collegially for extended hours. We heard testimony from consumer product organizations, environmental defence organizations, and toy manufacturers. We struggled through challenging issues for both consumer health and well-being and for industry.

Reducing risk to human health has been a preoccupation of people, physicians and politicians for the last 5,000 years. Virtually every major advance in public health has involved the reduction or elimination of risk, with the result being that the world is a safer place today. It is safer from accidents and deadly or incurable diseases and safer from hazardous consumer goods.

Therefore, it is government's duty to do all it reasonably can to accurately assess and reduce risks, such as making sure that food, medicines and other products are safe. Although government can rarely hope to reduce risks to zero, it can aim to lower them to a more acceptable level and it should openly and transparently communicate risk and risk reduction strategies to the public.

Bill C-36 is needed as the laws on consumer safety have not been thoroughly reviewed in over 40 years, and chemicals, technology, and trade have all changed significantly.

Canadians could question why the government was slow on this bill, a bill to improve Canada's out-of-date product safety laws, given that consumer safety was to be a top priority and the bill was first introduced a few years ago. Every time there is a high-profile recall and questions arise over Health Canada's reactivity, we hear the message: if only we had our consumer product safety bill in place.

However, parents need to be confident that the products they buy will be safe for them and their children.

It is important to note that the government has been in power for four years, has tabled the bill three times, and enjoys unanimous support from opposition parties, as well as strong support of major Canadian children's organizations, consumer advocacy groups, and other key stakeholders who share the conviction that Canadians need better protection from unsafe consumer products.

The bill overhauls existing legislation that proved inadequate to deal with high-profile safety scandals in 2007 and 2008 involving lead paint in children's toys and melamine in infant formula. The new proposed Canada consumer product safety act would improve consumer product safety with actions that would include the following.

It would prohibit the manufacturing, importing, marketing, or selling of any consumer product deemed or proven unsafe to human health or safety.

It would require industries to quickly inform the government when they discover one of their products is linked to a serious incident, death, or product safety issue.

It would require manufacturers and importers to provide test or study results on products when asked.

It would empower Health Canada to recall unreasonably dangerous consumer products.

As well, it would make it an offence to package or label consumer products that make false or deceptive health or safety claims.

The proposed Canada consumer products safety act builds on Bill C-6, which the government previously introduced,and takes into account concerns raised by stakeholders and parliamentarians through specific amendments.

The amendments include the following. The term “storing” has been defined in order to clarify that Health Canada inspectors' authorities would not extend to products that individuals store for their personal use.

The original bill stated that product safety inspectors could pass through or over private property while carrying out their functions without being liable for doing so. The amendment to the trespass provision addresses concerns by removing the phrase and they are not liable for doing so.

An amendment has been made so that the Minister of Health and not a product safety inspector would be accountable for ordering product recalls and other related measures.

An amendment has also been made to further define the timeframe for the review of orders. Under the previous bill, a review officer was required to complete the review within a reasonable time. This has now been further defined to say “no later than 30 days after the day on which the request is provided to the minister”.

I think it is important to mention a concern raised by one of Canada's leading law firms this week, namely, that the proposed legislation would place a major burden on Canadian businesses and is likely to lead to a surge in class action lawsuits.

One law partner warns that, “while the proposals have the support of consumer groups and political parties, they are likely to have a dramatic impact on many players in the chain, including suppliers, importers and retailers”.

“Bill C-36 will introduce a revolutionary upheaval in product regulation in Canada”, the partner reports. “For the first 140 years of Canadian history, these things have not existed from a regulatory perspective”.

It would give Health Canada the power to order a recall or carry out a recall itself, as well as dole out penalties. These include a fine of up to $5 million, two years in prison or both for indictable offences. This is up from $1 million. It would no longer be the cost of doing business. The partner warns that this could result in more litigation, including class action lawsuits that tend to follow recalls.

Suppliers and manufacturers may need to start thinking about organizing their businesses to ensure that people responsible for dealing with safety monitoring reporting to Health Canada and offering legal advice.

The legislation is important and has backing across Canada. We are, however, once again at the early stages of the parliamentary approval process and we must hope that this does not fall by the wayside as was the case when Parliament was prorogued.

Finally, Bill C-36 would significantly improve the product safety regime in Canada which would translate into improved health and safety for Canadians. Product safety is in everyone's best interest and everyone has a role to play: Canadians, government and industry.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, better product safety legislation is needed in the country. It seems like every few weeks there is a new report about some dangerous or faulty product. Many of these products are products for children. In 2010 we saw children's toys, cribs and medications all being subject to safety concerns.

Unfortunately Health Canada does not have the tools it needs to ensure the safety of the public. For example, it cannot issue mandatory recalls. In 2009 Health Canada posted more than 300 voluntary recall notices, a third of them for children's products. Lots of these products were not made in Canada, but still the government did not have the power to make the recalls mandatory.

The Hazardous Products Act of 1969 has not been effective in identifying or removing dangerous products. This has meant in the majority of cases Canadians have been dependent on the product alerts and recalls issued by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission instead of Health Canada. In 2005 and 2006 more than 40% of product recalls were ordered as a direct result of U.S. initiated action.

Successive Canadian governments, this one included, have been happy to promote and applaud corporate trade over the last few decades but not to police it. This is unacceptable. It is putting people at risk.

We need Health Canada to be taking the lead in these instances, identifying and removing dangerous products in a timely fashion. This is why I have asked this several times in the House since becoming health critic for the NDP, just as my colleague Judy Wasylycia-Leis asked before me. When will the government get serious about product safety legislation?

We have been asking and asking and finally the government did introduce Bill C-36 last spring. What an amazingly drawn out process. Delays have been due in part to the government's habit of proroguing when it suits its needs. It has been repeatedly terminating legislation designed to keep Canadians safe.

Here is a summary of what we have gone through. The first attempt was Bill C-51 in 2008. The NDP opposed Bill C-51 because instead of strengthening safety, it was a continuation of the previous Liberal government's interests and permissive attitudes toward big pharma. Fortunately Bill C-51 did not become law, but this was not due to political courage or insight from the government but because of Conservative prorogation after the federal election of 2008.

The next attempt to respond to the needs and requests of Canadians came when the government introduced Bill C-6, the Canada consumer product safety act in February 2009. Again, Bill C-6 did not survive because of prorogation in December 2009.

We have this current legislation, but we have seen more delays. The House convened on March 3 and Bill C-36 did not have its first reading until June 9, three months later, despite the government's repeated statement that the legislation was as important to it as it was to Canadians. Bill C-36 does not seem to be on the House's legislative agenda for the next few weeks.

My question to the government is this. When will the government continue the legislative process for a bill for which so many Canadians have been asking? Will there be more delays?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the committee members who participated in last night's debate, I want to say thank you for the very important initiative that's now being undertaken in partnership with a number of agencies across the country as it relates to MS.

Going back to the question on Bill C-36, we have reintroduced that legislation, as we stated in the throne speech. In Bill C-36 there were four amendments made to further clarify the legislation and to address some of the questions that had been raised through stakeholders and the Senate. Basically, changing from Bill C-6 to Bill C-36 does not change the intent of the bill.

There are four areas where there were minor amendments made to further clarify a couple of points. The first is the further clarification of what we mean by personal property. That was a concern that had been raised by a number of stakeholders. The definition could be interpreted quite broadly, so we narrowed that. The legislation does not apply to individual personal property.

Another area in the legislation is that it was felt that the inspectors had too much power to initiate recalls. We made changes to that. The minister would be authorized to do recalls for any unsafe products that might be in the market.

Another area of change was related to trespassing and liability issues. Again, that was further clarified.

One more point was related to the timeframe in terms of investigating unsafe products. There was concern there would be prolonged delays that would not be useful to the retailers and manufacturers. So within that legislation, we've now included a timeline when we're doing an investigation to get back to the industry or the retailers within 30 days. Again, that's to further clarify and address the concerns that had been raised by stakeholders in December.

Thank you.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

The other thing before I get into some specific questions is that I want to indicate my appreciation for what I think was a very good take note debate. I noted the interest of the Prime Minister. I noted your significant interest last night and certainly a very strong presence from our side of the bench in terms of listening and hearing, in terms of making sure about where we might go next.

In terms of getting into direct questions, I note that in the opening remarks you talked about the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. It was introduced as Bill C-36 last week. Of course, this committee has a special connection to that prior bill that was introduced, so could you tell us how this will be different from Bill C-6?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Do we know how micro-materials affect health and the environment? There is a lack of information on the effects of transforming micro-materials into nanomaterials. That is a first, relatively general question.

Ms. Maniet, you spoke to us about European regulations, which are much more stringent. I would like to know if that is only in terms of labelling or if that is also the case with the identification of hazardous products. You have the good fortune to be sitting directly beside the parliamentary secretary to the minister. He will be able to tell you whether the former Bill C-6 was re-introduced yesterday and provide you with much more specific information.

My final question is for Mr. Roco.

Given the amounts invested in the United States for research into determining the impact of nanotechnologies, I would like to know whether that research yielded interesting results.

[Françoise Maniet]

In Canada, we know that Bill C-6 was unfortunately withdrawn. We hope that the bill will soon be revived so that Canada may have a legislative framework comparable to that of the European Union.

I now come to the issue of convergence. I would simply like to point out the areas of convergence between the European Union and Canada. If we consider only those measures that have been implemented today, i.e., concrete measures, we find that there is not much of a difference between the European Union and Canada in the area of nanotechnologies, since there are no general regulations, with the exception—as I have already indicated—of the cosmetics and food additive industries—but there is not enough time for me to address that.

There is no common definition or classification of nanomaterials. Neither is there any pre-market control mechanism. Risk assessment methods are somewhat inadequate. There is no mandatory labelling and no transparency in terms of nanotechnology uses and applications. All of those issues are unanimously recognized as priorities on which we have to start working. All experts agree on that.

Thank you.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

I support this motion. I think it's a good motion.

We all know that Bill C-6 was before this committee. It was passed by this committee. It was passed by the House, and it got bogged down or derailed in the Senate. Other than that, it would have been legislation by now. I know that the Minister of Health certainly supports it as well and has great concerns that Bill C-6 did not pass the Senate and get royal assent.

So I support this motion. I hope we can pass it and move on.

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

Whereas the Minister of Health stated in the House of Commons, with respect to consumer product safety, on November 26 that “without Bill C-6, our government does not have the authority to order a product recall when companies fail to act on safety concerns”, and that “without Bill C-6, we do not have the tools needed to protect Canadians and their families”, and on December 7, that “one death is one...too many”, I move:

That the Standing Committee on Health request that the Minister of Health immediately reintroduce comprehensive product safety legislation.

Fairness at the Pumps Act

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

It was prorogation that killed Bill C-6 in the Senate. It was not just a senator. I thank the member. That was the real reason. Where is that bill? It has not come back here.

If we are talking about consumer protection, whether it is hockey sticks, gas pumps, toxic toys, all of those things, we have to be tough on crime because it is a theft from the pockets of consumers. They need to get the gasoline they pay for, every drop of it. If not, it is not fair.

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

Oh, that is what happened. It was prorogation that actually made Bill C-6--

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. First, NDP stands for the New Democratic Party of Canada. The extra “P” that the member added could stand for protection. That is what we want to do. We want to protect the consumers, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals.

We supported Bill C-6. We supported making sure there are clear mandatory regulations governing toxic toys and making sure that Health Canada has the power for mandatory recalls. Yes, it was unfortunate that it was shot down in the Senate.

I want to know why the Conservative government is not bringing back a bill that would protect the children of Canada. Because right now--

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening quite intently to the blustering of the hon. member from the NDP party. It is quite amazing some of the things the NDP party members try to purport as facts, such as the HST. I do not know if they really understand that it is up to the province to decide whether in fact it wants to bring in the HST.

Those members did not support our budgets which meant that they did not support any of the activities and the building Canada projects which would have been in their own ridings. I am wondering why they try to confuse the issue with non-facts.

In terms of protection of consumers in Canada, in fact it was the Liberal Party and the Senate that blocked Bill C-6 which would have afforded Canadians protection with respect to dangerous products in Canada.

Why have the NDP members been fighting our budget, fighting their own constituents? Why do they not want to have projects done in their own backyard?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you for the question.

First of all, as you underscore and as the witnesses have said, the issue of labelling has long been discussed, and we've noted where we thought the state of debate is at the moment. Part of that, as one of the witnesses said, is that there's still an outstanding debate between the issue of chronic and acute and how effective they are.

It would seem to us that we did not and would not enter into what seems a policy discussion on where that will finally land. However, we did also note at the international level some countries have adopted labelling under a UN initiative and that the evidence we had on that particular issue was that Canada wanted to harmonize its efforts with those of the United States.

On the specific issue of lead in toys and lead in products more generally, from our understanding of the history, there were various attempts to enter into voluntary agreements with industry, including with partners from outside Canada, from the import side, and that the label then was one of the options the departments had looked at. In the end, they decided to settle on an acceptable threshold, after which any product which exceeded that threshold would be an unacceptable or illegal product, essentially.

Finally, on why we did not make the recommendation, when were doing this audit, Bill C-6 was still very much in discussion, and we didn't move forward given the context of the Bill C-6 discussions.

[Glenda Yeates, Deputy Minister, Department of Health]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

It's a great pleasure to be here and we'd like to thank the commissioner for his comments with respect to the department.

This is my first opportunity as the Deputy Minister of Health to appear before your committee, and I am very happy that it's on a topic that is of such importance to Canadians.

Health Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians and takes very seriously its responsibility to manage substances that are harmful to human health.

Health Canada and Environment Canada already have extensive risk management policies in place to address the risks from many harmful substances, including lead and mercury. While these strategies were not in the consolidated from we now use, risk management actions for lead and mercury have been developed, implemented and monitored. We also monitor their effectiveness.

Decades ago, lead was identified as a dangerous substance. Over the last 40 years, the Government of Canada has introduced a number of initiatives to reduce exposure, and we've seen the levels of lead in the blood of Canadians drop dramatically. In fact, this is often cited in the public health field as a major success story. During that time Canada has also reduced its man-made mercury emissions by 90%, as my colleague from the Department of the Environment noted.

But we continue to want to move forward in protecting Canadians by implementing a solid chemicals management plan, one that is based on very sound and thorough science. This is a plan that assesses and manages the risks of chemical substances to human health and the environment.

As part of this plan, we set out to assess 200 of the highest-priority substances by 2011 and introduce whatever risk management would be required. I'm pleased to report to the committee that we are on schedule, having already completed final assessments for 120 of the substances on that list.

Just to put this in some perspective, we have accelerated our risk assessments from roughly 70 substances over 18 years to, rather, 70 substances every year. As I mentioned, we're on schedule, then, to complete the targeted assessments by 2011.

Health Canada continues to conduct research that gives us insight into the hazards associated with other chemicals and guides the way we monitor their impact on human health.

Our own assessments of the risks of Bisphenol A lead to Canada becoming the first country in the world to ban baby bottles made with that chemical. Canada was also the first country in the world to limit lead in children's jewelry, and we have some of the most stringent lead limits in the world.

We continue to monitor new scientific information on chemicals to determine whether additional action is needed. As recognized in the audit, we are currently doing this for lead. As we revise our risk management strategy, we will implement the commissioner's recommendation to develop a comprehensive and consolidated description of all of our actions and progress to date and outline any remaining actions and timelines.

With respect to the observation in the report about the labelling of consumer products, we were very thoughtful and focused on the fact that one of the three pillars of our approach to regulation is active prevention. This reinforces the notion that an informed consumer is in fact an integral part in the assurance of safety of consumer products. To that end, we recognize that labelling is one of a number of tools in the regulatory tool kit. However, there is still significant debate around the world about how and when to use this tool most effectively.

When the labelling issue was debated by a committee of the House of Commons when it was examining the former Bill C-6, the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, it was agreed that there was no simple solution. But the bill was then consequently amended to include the creation of an advisory committee which, among other things, would provide advice on issues such as labelling. Having an advisory committee that would consider and give us expert advice on labelling could supplement the work that we are already doing within the department with respect to chemicals that are used by consumers and chemicals that are used in the workplace.

Finally, I can assure the Committee that Health Canada collaborates effectively with Environment Canada. Scientists and managers from both departments jointly develop risk-management strategies to protect both human health and the environment.

As such, we are implementing the recommendations found in the report of the Commissioner of the Environment, and I would like to assure all members of the committee that Health Canada is committed to continuing to work with Environment Canada to enhance our risk management strategies and to monitor their performance.

Thank you very much.

Merci.

Product Safety

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians has been a concern of our government. That is why we took actions last fall to introduce Bill C-6. Unfortunately, the Liberal senators amended the legislation. We will be working again to reintroduce this legislation because the health and safety of our children is our number one priority.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we tabled the legislation last year, the consumer product safety act, Bill C-6. Unfortunately, there were amendments made in the Senate. We will continue to work with stakeholders to improve the legislation and reintroduce it sometime in this House.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, one of the pieces of legislation he wiped out, Bill C-6, was supposed to improve the safety of products sold in Canada. Last week, we learned about another unsafe children's product. This time it was baby cribs.

Millions of Canadians are concerned for their safety and also the safety of their children. Yet, product safety has not made it back to the Conservative agenda.

When will the government take action and put the safety of Canadians ahead of its own political interests?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate today on the Speech from the Throne.

I would remind the House that our government has repeatedly stated that jobs and economic growth is its top priority. This is a theme that was central throughout the throne speech.

Since July 2009, Canada has created 160,000 new jobs, tangible evidence, I would submit, that Canada's economic action plan is working. Statistics Canada reported that Canada's unemployment rate fell from 8.3% to 8.2% in February and that 21,000 new jobs had been created last month. That is the fifth month of job gains in the past seven months, but our determination remains unchanged. Our government will not be satisfied until every Canadian who has lost his or her job is working again.

In that regard, we are completing year two of our economic action plan with an additional $19 billion of stimulus spending to create and protect jobs. We will invest in new targeted initiatives and make Canada a destination of choice for new business investment. We continue to lower taxes to maintain Canada's competitive advantage and significantly we will establish the red tape reduction panel to reduce paperwork for business.

Many of my constituents in the riding of Edmonton—St. Albert are small business owners. It was with great enthusiasm that I told them that an advisory committee on small business and entrepreneurship made up of business persons would be created to provide advice on improving business access to federal programs and for information.

Small and medium-sized businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and sustain us in whatever economic situation we may currently be facing. I submit that the small and medium-sized enterprise innovation and commercialization program will allow small and medium-sized business to develop and promote innovative prototype products and technologies to federal departments and agencies.

However, Canadians want to know that their government will do everything possible to ensure the future economic stability and growth of this country. An integral part of our government's strategy is the reduction of the deficit and a return to balanced budgets. In that regard, we will follow a three-point plan: we will wind down temporary stimulus measures, restrain growth in spending and conduct an in-depth review of the government's administrative functions and overhead costs.

The economic recession has affected every corner of the globe. No country remains untouched but Canada has risen to lead the way with the soundest financial system in the world. The Speech from the Throne emphasizes our response as measured and responsible and makes it clear that Canada is well on its way to economic recovery and stability.

The focus of the throne speech may be the economy and job creation. However, our government remains just as committed to its safe streets and safe communities agenda. The government has addressed the issues of crime by bringing forward legislation mandating prison sentences and ensuring that criminals serve the sentences they have been given.

We will continue to focus on protecting the most vulnerable among us, our children, by increasing the penalties for sexual offences against children and strengthening the sex offender registry. We intend to introduce legislation to crack down on white collar crime and ensure that tougher sentences are issued. As recent high profile cases remind us, white collar crime is all too prevalent and affects many hard-working Canadians personally as they see a lifetime of savings disappear instantly.

The Speech from the Throne points out that our justice system must be made to be more effective. As a result, we will introduce legislation that would cut the number of protracted trials and offer tangible support to victims of crime and their families. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime welcomed the government's additional funding of $6.6 million over two years as the way to build on its earlier investment in the federal victims' strategy and the creation of the federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

The throne speech outlines the need to move forward on essential legislation, including the repeal of the long gun registry and the re-introduction in their original form of the then Bill C-6, the consumer safety law, and the then Bill C-15, the anti-drug crime law, some pivotal pieces of our government's crime agenda.

The former Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, is designed to tackle drug crimes and would mandate two year prison sentences for dealing drugs, such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamines, to youth. It would also increase penalties for trafficking in GHB and flunitrazepam, most commonly known as the date rape drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences would also be imposed for the production and sale of illicit drugs.

Significantly, it also would allow the drug treatment courts, such as the one in Edmonton, to suspend a sentence where the addicted accused person takes an appropriate treatment program. Drug treatment courts encourage the accused person to deal with the addiction that motivates his or her criminal behaviour and break the cycle of crime to further his or her drug addiction.

New offences would be created for gang-related drug offences, as well as drug offences that are specifically targeted toward children, such as selling drugs near our schools. The hon. Minister of Justice has said “these measures are a proportionate and measured response designed to disrupt criminal enterprise; drug producers and dealers who threaten the safety of our communities must face tougher penalties”.

In my view, these changes are long overdue. They would send a strong signal to criminals that it is unacceptable for them to put dangerous drugs onto our street. We must protect our children from drugs and other illicit behaviour and ensure that drug dealers end up where they belong: behind bars.

I look forward to the reintroduction of that bill.

The former Bill C-46, investigative powers for the 21st century act, would ensure law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools they need to fight crime and terrorism in today's high-tech environment. Legislation must be updated to reflect an ever-evolving technological world and to provide investigators with modern communication technologies to perform complex investigations.

When this bill is reintroduced, the amendments would address the constant struggle to keep up with the high-tech world. It would create a new offence, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years, to prohibit anyone from using a computer system, such as the Internet, to agree or make arrangements with any other person for the purposes of sexually exploiting a child. This new offence would also be used in the context of undercover investigations. Police would also be able to obtain data from the telephone and the Internet by creating a new concept called “transmission data”.

Those and several other additional changes to help police obtain transmission data would allow law enforcement agencies to track domestic cybercrime and enhance international co-operation. Cybercrime has no borders and the transnational nature of organized criminal activity means that international co-operation is not a luxury but a necessity.

This proposed legislation, when reintroduced, aims to provide the police and other stakeholders with the tools they need to investigate computer and computer-related crimes while ensuring that the rights of Canadians are protected.

The Speech from the Throne highlights the decisive actions our government has taken to crack down on crime and ensure the safety and security of our communities, and we will move ahead with this critical crime legislation. We take the issue of law and order seriously to make this a stronger and safer Canada, both now and for the future.

The struggle to keep up with emerging criminal technologies and crime is a constant struggle, full of setbacks, both for law enforcement and for legislators, with sometimes minor and occasionally major advances. However, it is a pivotal struggle for lawmakers because the laws that we debate and pass in this House must be premised on preserving the safety and liberty of law-abiding citizens.

As indicated, it is a constant and pivotal struggle but, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the U.S. constitution and defender of liberty, ”Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.

[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.

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

Madam Chair, after having studied the matter, the way in which this committee has gone about expressing its desire that Bill C-6 be passed with all due speed is through the work that has been done in the House itself. If my colleague considers the Senate to be an obstacle to the way in which Parliament should work, he should actually be talking about abolishing it.

At the moment, the Senate is there, and senators are studying the bill. They already know that we want the bill passed for the benefit of our fellow citizens because of all the discussions that we have had in the House of Commons.

So, for those reasons, Madam Chair, I will vote against my colleague's motion.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I'd like to put on record that no Liberal Senator is delaying Bill C-6. The Senators are dealing with Bill C-6 in a responsible manner. They, like the Liberals on this committee, support the safety of consumer products for Canadians.

I consider this motion not only extraneous, but insulting. This bill was in the House for 70 sitting days and it has been in the Senate for only 28 sitting days. I think the member opposite will agree that there were some complex issues that needed to be addressed and witnesses to be heard from in order to understand this bill. This has been expedited.

The government first spoke to Bill C-6 in the Senate on June 23, which was the day before the House adjourned. Liberal Senator Day spoke to the bill two sitting days later, on September 16. This bill was referred to committee on October 7, but it didn't even get heard in committee until October 21. So this is a bill that will end up spending half the number of sitting days in the Senate that it did in the House, and on clause-by-clause, so a vote will be taking place next week. The senators have all been responsibly passing this in an expeditious fashion, so the Liberals will be abstaining on this extraneous vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Consumer Product Safety

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we introduced Bill C-6 to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We recognize that the current legislation is over 40 years old. It is outdated. That is why we are encouraging the Liberal senators to stop delaying the passage of that legislation, so that we can protect the health and safety of Canadians.

I found out about this yesterday, and yesterday we issued the release to protect the health and safety of Canadians. Current legislation does not give us a mandatory recall. It only gives us a voluntary recall. We have to work with the industry on any recalls. Also, we will continue to push the senators of the Liberal Party to pass--

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

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also want to see Bill C-6 passed and we want mandatory recalls. However, that does not explain the fact that the government could have issued voluntary recalls, at least going back to August, when the Americans informed it.

So, my question is, why is the government not exercising the authority it has right now? Where was the follow-up to the complaints? What products were tested? Why were public warnings not issued? Why was there no hint of concern given to parents? Why should Canadians trust the government to proactively protect them under a new law when it has failed so miserably to protect them under the old one?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not currently have the authority to order a mandatory recall.

We introduced the Canada consumer product safety act, Bill C-6. When passed, it will give us the tools needed to protect Canadian children.

I am hearing that the Liberal senators want to further delay this bill review by postponing a clause-by-clause review scheduled for tomorrow morning. I would continue to urge the Liberal senators to stop delaying the passage of these important safety measures that will protect Canadians and their children.

Product Safety

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, again, to recall any products that are on the shelves of retail stores, we require the legislation that would allow us to do that.

Bill C-6 that is stuck in the Senate with the Liberals, once passed, would allow us to recall products that are unsafe for our children.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this very important issue. I agree with the member.

There is a bill in the Senate, Bill C-6, the Consumer Product Safety Act, which would allow us to recall products that are unsafe. I would urge all members of this House to urge the Liberal senators to pass the bill so that we can protect the health and safety of our children.

Opposition Motion--Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the opposition day motion moved by the hon. member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader.

The motion recognizes the role of the House in ensuring government accountability. As we know, that is the primary function of Parliament in our Westminster system.

More specifically, the motion at hand calls for three things: first, that the Standing Orders of the House be changed with respect to the scheduling of allotted days this fall; second, that the House calendar be altered to accommodate the G20 meetings in September; and third, that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget.

I will touch on these three points very briefly, as it is the government's intention to support the motion. I will devote the remainder of my remarks to a more general discourse on the successful functioning of Parliament and my experiences of this past session.

The opposition day motion provides for a change to the rules of Parliament with regard to how the government may allocate opposition days this fall. Since coming to office in 2006, as a general rule our government has always tried to evenly distribute the opposition days in the parliamentary calendar. In certain circumstances we recognize that legislative priorities can force a deviation from this practice. However, we do support the idea of amending the Standing Orders to ensure that this usual practice becomes a rule.

The second provision of today's opposition day motion provides for a change to the House calendar for the fall of 2009. Under this provision the House would open a week earlier than currently scheduled and it would then adjourn for the week of September 21. This will enable the government to focus on the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on September 24 and 25.

The G20 is the chief forum for the world leaders, as a group, to address issues resulting from the global economic crisis, and Canada has played an active and important role in these discussions. At the fall G20 meetings, the Prime Minister and other world leaders will discuss progress in promoting economic recovery and they will consider new ways to address global economic and financial challenges.

I think we can all agree that there is no more pressing issue before Parliament than dealing with the global economic downturn, which has caused personal hardship and job loss around the world. Unfortunately, as we all know, Canada has not been immune.

Our legislative program of this past session has reflected that the economy is the number one issue for Canadians. As such, I am pleased to support a motion that permits the Government of Canada to give its undivided attention to the critical economic discussions that will be taking place at the G20 summit in September.

The third provision of today's opposition motion requests that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget. In the face of global economic uncertainty, this government presented a budget in January with a comprehensive economic action plan to stimulate economic growth, restore confidence and support Canadians and their families during this global recession.

This economic recovery program is unprecedented in our history, and it is working. Canada was the last group of seven country to enter recession and the International Monetary Fund expects that we will have the strongest recovery coming out of it.

The government has also taken unprecedented steps in reporting on our economic action plan. We tabled an initial budget report in March. A week ago we tabled a second budget report, which outlines how 80% of the measures in our economic action plan are already being implemented. This government welcomes the opportunity provided by today's opposition day motion to table a third budget report in September. In fact, we committed to such a report in our budget presentation earlier this past winter.

The Minister of Finance announced at the time that he would be tabling an economic report in the fall. This being the case, I commend the official opposition for echoing the government's pre-existing intention and commitment to provide quarterly reports on the economy in and through the House to all Canadians. As we debate this today, I think it is important to remember that the government was already committed to providing that report in September.

As all members in the House know, the last few weeks have not been easy in this place. In fact they have not been easy on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. During this time of economic challenge, Canadians did not want to hear about the possibility of an election. Canadians want us to continue to work to achieve results for them. They know we cannot afford an election, which would put Canada's economic recovery at risk, halt stimulus investment across the country and limit our ability to continue to implement our economic action plan for Canadians.

By avoiding an election, we have enabled the government to continue its course of doing everything possible to turn this global recession around on our own soil. The cooperation we have seen emerge over this week, spearheaded by our Prime Minister, has not only avoided a costly and unwanted election but has clearly demonstrated to Canadians that their Parliament can work for them.

Despite the partisan political drama played out during the daily 45 minutes of question period, Canadians may be surprised to know just how cooperative and productive this past session of Parliament has been. Since January, our government has worked with all opposition parties to advance many important bills that will help Canadian families. We have moved forward on our electoral commitments, and I am pleased that much more has been done.

Since January, the government has introduced a total of 54 bills. By the time the Senate adjourns for the summer next week, I expect we will have royal assent on 26 of those bills, including such important legislative initiatives as Bill C-33, which will restore war veterans' allowances to allied veterans and their families; Bill C-29, to guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and co-operatives; Bill C-3, to promote the economic development of Canada's north; Bill C-28, to increase the governance capacity of first nations in Canada; and Bill C-14, a critically important justice bill to fight the scourge of organized crime.

Although much work has been accomplished, a good number of bills that continue to be priorities of our government remain on the order paper, including Bill C-6, to enact Canada's consumer product safety act to help protect the health and safety of all Canadians; Bill C-8, to provide first nations women on reserve with the same rights and protections enjoyed by all other Canadians; and Bill C-23, to open new doors for trade between Canada and Colombia.

Furthermore, our government has continued to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to fighting crime and violence in this country. Our justice minister, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, has been unrelenting in his determination to hold criminals accountable and protect victims and law-abiding Canadian citizens.

Over a dozen justice related bills have been introduced since the beginning of this parliamentary session, which include Bill C-15, Bill C-26 and Bill S-4, to help fight crimes related to criminal organizations, such as drug-related offences, identity theft and auto theft; Bill C-25, which will return truth in sentencing and eliminate the two for one credit; Bill C-36, which will repeal the faint hope clause, and Bill C-19, the new anti-terrorism bill.

Unfortunately none of these bills have completed the legislative process during this session of Parliament. Again, due to the leadership of our Prime Minister, thankfully our country will not be plunged into an election and these bills will remain on the order paper. We hope to pass them into law in the fall.

I look forward to continuing the spirit of cooperation in this place in September to accomplish this unfinished business for all Canadians. Five of these bills have already passed one chamber of Parliament and they are before the second House for consideration. On behalf of vulnerable Canadians in particular, we have to keep moving to get the job done on this important legislation.

In closing, I am pleased that the government has been able to develop today's opposition day motion in cooperation with the official opposition. This House of Commons should more often focus on what all of us have in common rather than what divides us. While I would have liked to have seen some debate on some of our newer bills that we have just introduced and passed more of our justice and safety bills, this parliamentary sitting is winding down in the age-old Canadian tradition of compromise.

We all know that this place is about debate, trade-offs, negotiations and compromise. This is how Parliament works. This is how our very country was born, has grown and continues to develop and flourish.

As I have already indicated, the government will be supporting today's motion. I again salute our Prime Minister for his leadership in staving off an election, which I think would be dreaded by the vast majority of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you, and all colleagues in this House, a very happy summer.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

I support this legislation, but I would caution against any description of this as being the definitive approach to consumer product safety. The bill takes a relatively narrow slice of the challenge and addresses that in an acceptable way. For that reason, I see it as a step forward, but certainly a lot of terrain remains to be covered.

I want to comment on the co-operative approach taken by the Standing Committee on Health. Members from all parties essentially had the same objective, which was to increase protection for Canadian consumers in terms of both the design of and the elements in manufactured products.

Bill C-6 would modernize the regulatory framework. One witness at committee commented that this could have been done through an amendment to the Hazardous Products Act, but the government decided to provide new legislation in response to Canadians' concerns about the various recalls and unsafe products that were coming into the country and being sold over the last couple of years.

The bill operates on a premise that is considered to be a general prohibition. It takes more of the responsibility for ensuring product safety off the government's lap and places it on the private sector's lap. There is a general prohibition in terms of the manufacturing, import, advertisement and sale of consumer products that constitute a danger to human health or safety.

That is a different direction from having lists of dangerous compounds or dangers that the government identifies. This legislation primarily puts that responsibility on the private sector. There is a lot of debate about that, and there are some pros and cons to that approach.

While the bill would add more of the ongoing monitoring and safety assurance responsibilities to the private sector and reduce the burden on government, it increases the level of compliance and enforcement and creates a tracing mechanism so that government can ensure that the private sector is doing its job. It would allow the government to monitor that more easily.

The legislation also proposes to increase fines and penalties, which is part of the compliance and enforcement strengthening.

A key function of the legislation would be to enable government to have mandatory recall where there is a problem, rather than that being a voluntary act on the part of the private sector as it was in the past. Having this provision for a mandatory recall was supported by all witnesses at committee and is a strength of the bill.

The bill is not as comprehensive as some committee members, including myself, thought it could be. It addresses only a slice of the problem.

Schedule 2 talks about the kinds of things that have to be taken off the market, but it has only 14 products or product categories listed. For example, spectacle frames that, in whole or in part, are made of or contain cellulose nitrate would be prohibited. That is one of 14 prohibited categories. Under item 9, kite string made of a material that conducts electricity would be prohibited. That is a good thing to prohibit. However, I am giving these examples to show that the schedule is very narrow and specific.

Item 14 concerns law darts with elongated tips. Yes, it is good to ensure that these kinds of products are not in the marketplace where they could hurt people. However, when there are only 14 exclusions and they are that specific, that tells us there is a lot this bill does not address. That is more where I would like to direct my remarks.

It was very ably captured by the member for Etobicoke North earlier in the debate. She and I, as well as some of the other committee members, have grave concerns about the bill's failure to address toxins, carcinogens, the cumulative impacts of compounds that may not be harmful in small doses but build up in the body causing damage to health, chronic exposure, toxins in products affecting the environment when they are flushed down the drain or go into landfills and accumulate in the environment, and very worrisome hormone disrupters. These chemicals are not adequately removed from circulation in consumer products in this bill.

I am particularly concerned about the impact of consumer products containing chemicals and toxins that I have noted, such as pesticides, persistent organic pollutants, arsenic, lead, or mercury in products that children have access to, children's products such as toys and clothing. Other countries have done the job of removing access to these toxic and carcinogenic compounds from consumers. Canada has not done that yet. We still need to do that, and Bill C-6 does not do the job.

My concern about children's health and the environment goes back a number of years. I had the privilege in 2003 of being the president of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. During my term, I chose to put two things on the forward agenda of CCME so that they would be part of what the provincial and federal ministers would research, address and develop strategies for.

One of those two items was the issue of children's health and the environment. Children process these toxins differently. It is not just a matter of smaller bodies needing proportionately less of the chemicals to create harm. Children are actually in a developmental stage in their early years, so there can be a disruption of their neurological and metabolic development that is very harmful. Government needs to be addressing this. We need a stronger approach to eliminating these toxins, and Bill C-6 just does not do that.

Liberal members put forward a number of amendments to address this concern. For example, there was an amendment to clause 7 that would identify cumulative impacts, chronic exposure and release into the environment as areas of harm and danger to people that would be covered by this bill.

We crafted an amendment, a new clause 8.1, in which we would have had this bill list up to 700 chemicals, carcinogens, hormone disrupters, and toxins, drawn from the groups of agents provided by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, as well as substances listed in schedule 1 of CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

We proposed that these compounds be covered under Bill C-6. We proposed that they be removed over time if the minister could not show reason that they were absolutely essential to stay in consumer products aimed at children. So our amendments squarely addressed the issue of access that children have to compounds that are harmful to them and not covered in the set of 14 categories in the schedule included in the bill.

We successfully brought forward an amendment to have an advisory committee, so that as the government goes forward with the regulations there can be proper consultation and a thoughtful approach to the regulations so that any concerns that may come forward based on the rather thin consultation that has happened so far on this bill can be addressed in the crafting of the regulations.

The government's view was that the improvements we were looking for can be covered under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and its chemical management plan, and that those are vehicles for pulling those toxins out of the environment.

I accept that it is a possibility. My knowledge from previously dealing with CEPA when I was a provincial environment minister was that it was very slow to actually act on removing toxins from the environment. It had a huge list that it was not getting to, and it was causing great frustration for Canadians concerned about environmental issues and in provinces across the country.

We have been assured that CEPA has been fixed and is moving forward more quickly and that the chemical management plan is doing the job that we were looking for from Bill C-6. This has yet to be demonstrated to my satisfaction.

We have done a small segment with Bill C-6, but I am going to be calling on the advisory committee legislated by Bill C-6 to take a very thorough look at these issues of chronic toxic effects and cumulative effects of these toxins, carcinogens, hormone-disrupters, and persistent organic pollutants. I am going to challenge that advisory committee to put forward an approach to pulling those out of consumer products.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the third time and passed.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-6.

Hundreds of products have been recalled in the last couple of years, many of them from offshore. In fact, 65% of the products sold in this country are imported. Not many are made here.

I want to speak about children's products. When my children were little, I remember seeing labels on toys, blankets and so on, mainly children's products, that indicated they were made from 100% unknown fibres. I used to smile at that. I knew what it meant. They were probably clean and new fibres, but they were unknown fibres. Hopefully this bill will address that kind of label, as well as counterfeit labels.

Canada's Hazardous Products Act is 40 years old this year. It has not been very effective in identifying or removing dangerous products. It leaves Canadians at the mercy of product recalls which mainly originate in the United States. We take action later.

Bill C-6 will enable us to recall products in a timely fashion. It addresses some of the weaknesses. It will empower the government to order a recall of dangerous products. It will increase government authority to require information and action from manufacturers and importers. It will require mandatory reporting by manufacturers and importers of incidents involving death or injury from a product's use, and to inform Canadians of any potential harm. It also will apply heavy fines to violators.

There are some good parts in this bill and I am certainly supportive of it. Despite these changes, however, improvements are still needed if the bill is to be effective and supportable. I will talk about some of those proposed amendments in a moment.

Right now there is too much discretion for inspectors, and action is pretty well optional, even when it is believed that human health might be at risk. The government is not required to inform consumers of safety issues that have been identified. This area needs to be tightened up.

Sometimes it is just a question of language. Instead of stating that something “may” be done, the legislation should state that there is a responsibility to do something, or that something “must” be done. The bill must have a more proactive, aggressive approach to product safety.

With respect to consumer protection, the previous Liberal government had 12 years to do something and as of 2005-06 nothing had been done.

I would like to make a quick comment concerning a business in my riding, because it is relevant in this particular situation regarding consumer protection and harm to Canadians.

GRK Fasteners is an importer and exporter of fastening products. Ninety-six per cent of the products that GRK Fasteners produces and repackages in Canada are sent to the United States and only about 4% of the products are sold in Canada. It is very harmful to Canadians and harmful to this company, and the 40 or so people who work for GRK Fasteners, that the company has been hit with a 170% SIMA duty. That needs to be reconsidered and dealt with soon. This company is doing absolutely no harm to Canadians, as 96% of its products are exported to the United States.

It is very interesting that the government can overlook some things that harm Canadians, but it is really harming Canadians, small business and jobs such as those at GRK Fasteners in Thunder Bay. That company's only option may be to move its operations to the United States. We are talking about 40 manufacturing jobs in Thunder Bay. It is interesting to make that contrast.

Getting back to the bill at hand, the public is hungry for reliable product safety information. Companies in Canada manufacture high-quality safe products. Quite frankly, we expect others to do the same and to be able to prove it.

There are some proposed amendments to the bill for when it gets to committee.

The first is concerning health and the environment. The general “prohibition” in the bill 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 via the environment.

A section should be added prohibiting substances on the list of toxic substances from consumer products, with a very few exceptions, for example, when the substance is not a hazard in the consumer product itself. I think we could be reasonable on that kind of amendment.

The legislation should include a duty for the government to act when the government is made aware of a risk regarding a consumer product. I think everybody in this House would agree that would be a reasonable amendment. There should be a duty for the minister to inform the public when he or she is made aware of a risk regarding a consumer product.

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 potential harm from chronic exposure to the substance; the potential harm to vulnerable populations; the cumulative exposure to a substance Canadians receive from the products of concern and other environmental exposures; and the substitution principle, that is, whether safe substitutes exist.

The legislation should create a hot list similar to that for cosmetics, listing carcinogens, mutagens, 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 when 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 a number of states, including California and Vermont, and in the European Union as well.

The legislation should 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. The legislation should require labelling of all ingredients, as is already the case with cosmetics and some other products.

I prefaced my remarks by saying that I certainly support sending this bill to committee. I have just outlined some of the amendments we would like to see to the bill. I am certainly open to any questions that may come from the floor.

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

My colleague is saying that is not true, but in reading the bill, they were concerned that if natural health products were part of the drug act, many of them could not provide the same kind of proof of their safety.

For example, ginseng has been sold in various herbal stores for thousands of years. For many years in Canada, there was no problem with that. However, many of the herbal medicine folks were extremely worried that natural health products would be included in Bill C-6. However, for anyone who was worried about that, they are not included.

This is not to say that we still do not have to deal with natural health products. We need a natural health product act so they are regulated in a way that gives a special kind of consideration because of their tradition.

I am glad we finally have the bill in front of us. Hopefully, it can pass here, find support in the Senate and come back here to be made into law.

[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—

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to not just the regular Thursday question about the business of the House for the next week, but indeed to respond to all the questions from my colleague across the way.

In the order that we will dealing with it, today we are debating a motion from the New Democratic Party, which has its supply day today.

Tomorrow we will continue, and hopefully conclude, the third reading stage of Bill C-6, product safety, followed by Bill C-36, the faint hope bill. The backup bill tomorrow will be Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism bill.

Monday, June 15 and Friday, June 19, 2009 shall be allotted days.

On Monday, we will be introducing a bill regarding the Maa-nulth First Nations agreement. It is my intention, provided that I have an agreement from all the other parties, to call and complete that bill on Tuesday. On behalf of that first nation, I express my appreciation to all hon. members and all the parties in the House.

Next week, I will also call Bill C-26, auto theft, for report and third reading. My hope is that we will get that down the hall to get it dealt with at the Senate.

In addition to Bill C-26, we will also consider Bill C-36, the faint hope bill; Bill C-37, National Capital Act; Bill C-38, Nahanni; and Bill C-31, modernizing criminal procedure. All of these bills, as we know, are at second reading.

I am hoping that Bill S-4, identity theft, can be sent over from the Senate expeditiously. If and when it arrives, I will be seeking the cooperation of the opposition to try to expedite that bill in our Chamber.

I might add that despite the assurance of the hon. opposition House leader last week, after we had passed Bill C-33 at all stages, the bill that will extend benefits to allied veterans and their families, I expected the Senate to quickly follow suit. Although sad, it is true that time is running out for some of these veterans and their families. They are waiting to receive these benefits. This bill is not controversial, but the delay of this bill by Liberal senators will become controversial very quickly.

Last week I also mentioned Bill C-29 in my Thursday reply, which the hon. member for Wascana mentioned a minute ago. That is the agricultural loans bill, which will guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. Today the Liberal senators did not grant leave to even consider the bill, let alone agree to adopt it.

Another week has come and gone. I am not sure how the member for Wascana intends to return to farm families in Saskatchewan and explain why his senators in the other place are delaying the passage of Bill C-29.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact enforcement provisions, inspection capabilities and surveillance were raised by the committee over and over again. We know that this bill, no matter how good it sounds on paper, is only as good as the active resources in the field monitoring and doing surveillance.

We were shocked that there is no real plan to ensure appropriate inspection staff or enforcement officers are in place. The government's budget allows for some increase in inspection officers, but only about 40 over the next 5 years. That is hardly commensurate with the general direction offered by this bill and the requirements of Bill C-6. It is based on the notion that we need to check things at the border, that we have to be able to do spot checks in manufacturing outlets in this country, that we have inspectors going into toy stores and other retail outlets. Yet, we do not have the capacity to do so.

This legislation could offer very little protection to Canadians, unless we can convince the government to add resources to it.

We tried very hard to get changes on a couple of issues, and we just could not. Before I get to that, let me say that with respect to workplace inspectors and surveillance, we had great presentations from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. We also had important representations from the United Food and Commercial Workers, in particular, Larry Stoffman, who brought us information, as well as the steelworkers. We will continue to be vigilant on that front.

There are two other issues of importance. One is with respect to tobacco.

Although we have other legislation coming forward that deals with flavoured tobacco products, which is good, we could not convince the government to include an amendment in this bill to ensure that it is also listed as an area where consumer safety and health protection laws would apply.

Although the officials were very helpful on many fronts, and I appreciate their help on this bill with the amendments and their explanations, we could not convince them or the government to include tobacco as a precautionary measure, to ensure that it has the double protection of our tobacco laws and our consumer protection laws. Why they could not do that, I do not know.

Finally, with respect to noisy toys, I want to give the government credit. It is an issue of mine. I have a private member's bill to ensure that we lower the decibel levels of toys allowed on the market. It did not get accepted as part of this bill, but the officials and the government made a clear commitment that they will be bringing in regulations to bring our standards up to the highest level anywhere in the world, to ensure that children are protected from very noisy toys and that their hearing is not hurt because of unacceptable levels of noise and unsafe toys.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak at third reading on a very important bill that has seen a very thorough process throughout the House.

I would like to thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois for their work on the amendments. I would also like to point out that all the parties were able to work together on this very important bill. It has truly been a process of cooperation and we have made many important changes to this bill.

Bill C-6 has been identified as a key concern over a number of parliamentary sessions and a number of governments. Promises were made to change the Hazardous Products Act and other related legislation to bring them up to the 21st century, so that we would be truly in line with consumers' thinking about what is appropriate when it comes to consumer safety and health protection. This legislation has been a long time coming.

This legislation is not perfect. We wish it had much more in terms of teeth and much more emphasis on the precautionary principle. We in the NDP believe that the most significant thing government can do in this day and age is to bring in legislation that follows the do no harm principle, that ensures that all products, whether children's toys or household cleaners or consumer gadgets, are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is quite different than the risk management model which says consumers should be warned that a product is not necessarily safe, and if they run into problems and that information is brought forward to government, it might deal with it.

The bill moves a bit toward the precautionary principle but only with baby steps. It could have gone a lot further. The precautionary principle stops in the whereas' of the bill.

I am not going to dismiss this legislation because we in the NDP are going to support it. We are going to support it because we think it is important, it is long overdue, and we have made some changes to make it better. Unfortunately, we did not get all of our changes.

Many of the groups that worked so hard on the bill were disappointed. I am thinking in particular of the Environmental Defence, the David Suzuki Foundation, and the Canadian Cancer Society, three groups that worked tirelessly on the bill and worked with all members of health committee. These groups informed us, taught us, proposed amendments, made suggestions, and educated us. We learned a great deal from them. I am very grateful for the major role that they played throughout the legislative process.

In the end we were forced to concede to changes that were fairly small in nature, but significant at least in terms of finding some way down the road to protect Canadians, even if they do no harm principle was not firmly entrenched in every aspect of the bill.

We did that by ensuring, and this is where I want to take some credit on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, an amendment in the bill that requires the bill, once it is passed, to come back to both the House of Commons and the Senate for scrutiny in terms of regulations.

There will be a chance to provide some kind of oversight once the government begins to find ways to implement a legislative initiative that is so vital and so important in terms of the health and well-being of Canadians.

We are also pleased to support an amendment proposed by the Liberals which would add an advisory committee to the gambit of tools available to the government. With the assistance of the government, members of the committee, and the whole House, we saw that the amendment was included with a royal recommendation and is now part of the bill. That was another indication of co-operative work on the part of all of us.

That means there will be a body of experts who will devote themselves to furthering the broad principles of the bill and will try to apply the precautionary principle, the do no harm principle, in more ways than is apparent at present.

The bill has certainly been noted for many significant reasons. It has very substantive recall provisions with significant punishments attached. I do not want to underestimate the significance of those provisions.

Over the last number of years we on this side of the House have raised numerous concerns with the present government and the Liberal government before it about unsafe products on the market.

For years we have been dealing with lead in children's toys and phyllates in plastics that are put in the mouths of babies and children, which are toxic, dangerous and cause very serious life-threatening debilitating problems.

We are pleased that the government has provided for a way to ensure that once we have identified serious problems, action can be taken. I think we will all agree that the problem with this bill is that it is not readily apparent how action will be taken and products that are problematic in the first place are identified.

We did not get an amendment in this legislation that lists hazardous products. We did not get, as the Environmental Defence, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society wanted, a provision in this bill that would ensure that all products with hazardous substances would be listed in this legislation, and they would be labelled accordingly.

In that way there would be some certainty for all Canadians that even if the government did not take steps to ban a product, remove a product, or recall a product, at least consumers would know what substances were in that particular product. If they believed that there was enough science to be of concern for usage of that product, then they could at least take personal responsibility.

That was a very important contribution to the process throughout this bill. All of the organizations I have mentioned, time and time again, pointed out just how important it would be for us to take those lists of carcinogens and hormone-disrupting and endocrine-disrupting substances, toxins and chemicals and list them, and have them denoted and labelled, including the labelling of all products.

We did not get those amendments, and there was certainly major disappointment. Now, our job is to ensure that the government lives up to its commitment to say that if we can prove that something is a problem in terms of health and safety then the government will take action. Well, we will hold it to that, and we will try every step of the way to remind it of those obligations.

I hope that through the advisory committee and through the reporting back to this House, we will have some extra checks in place.

Suffice it to say, this bill falls short of where some of the international community is at with respect to very dangerous chemicals and substances. The European Union has in fact taken the steps of listing all such carcinogens, hormone disrupters, and dangerous chemicals and toxins, and is moving toward a phased-in process of labelling.

That is something this country cannot avoid. In the long run we will have to do the same. It is too bad because this bill should have been the ultimate, having waited for 40 or 50 or 60 years, in improving the Hazardous Products Act. This should have been the moment when we actually did a perfect job and produced legislation that was the best in the world. We fall short of that objective and we will now have to play some catch up.

I want members to know that I believe the obligation will be on this House and all members of Parliament to push that envelope, to advance that agenda. We have to make sure that in the end we have in fact delineated all such toxic substances and provided consumers with the information that they need to make responsible decisions.

We have to follow the right to know principle. There is no way around it in this complex world with so many dangerous substances and so much technological development. With such rapid change all around us, at the bare minimum we have to at least ensure that consumers are made aware of the necessary information.

It came as a shock to us to have some witnesses come before our committee and say that this would be too complicated, too much, that consumers would be overloaded, not able to choose, and would end up making the wrong decisions and would be too confused.

As we said back to those witnesses, consumers are on top of the ball. They are certainly advanced in terms of understanding and are looking to government to provide them with the information so they can make responsible decisions.

Consumers are looking for safe food, drugs, water, products, toys, pharmaceuticals and medical interventions. They expect the government to ensure that all of the products we have to take and need for our health and well-being are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

I must say that we did accomplish something that was important in terms of the natural health community. Early on, the forces in this community, those people who produce, manufacture or use natural health products, rose up and said that they felt that there was no place in this legislation for those products. They said that we had to differentiate between consumer products and natural health products. The government listened and we certainly pressured it to do so. It agreed to amend the bill so that nothing about the bill would have any bearing on natural health products.

However, it did raise an interesting dilemma for the government. It showed that we have a third regulatory mechanism by which we deal with natural health products in this country that is failing. Small businesses that produce and sell these natural health products are coming to the government on a constant basis, demanding some action to improve the process and reduce the backlog.

The government itself has suggested that there is a deadline of 2010 by which all consumer and natural health products must be through the process, receive their DIN number, and be licensed or else sent back for further research. As things now stand, there are something like 36,000 applications before the government and no sign of that diminishing. Never mind the backlog. With the number of applications that have come in on a daily basis, a significant number have not been dealt with and have been added to the backlog.

The problem is only getting worse. Many of the groups, including the Canadian Health Food Association, have called on the government to start to get a handle on this and live up to its promise to end the backlog and to say whether or not this 2010 deadline means anything. If the government is not anywhere close to meeting its obligations to deal with all products by that time, they would prefer that the deadline be changed.

They would prefer more cooperative work to be done between the natural health food industry, retailers, consumers and the government to ensure that proper regulatory measures are taken to approve products and not simply to deal with the backlog by getting rid of and denying applications, which seems to be the pattern.

The government seems to be saying that it is going to deal with the backlog and it is doing it by denying more applications than not. It thereby reduces the backlog in a most unfortunate way, without the science, evidence of effectiveness or the true test of whether or not any of these products are falsified or not accurate in terms of their description and identification.

That is a problem that emerged from these discussions. It must be dealt with and it must be dealt with before the government even begins to think about reintroducing Bill C-51, which had amendments to the Food and Drug Act. We know the uproar that happened last year and the year before about natural health products. We know that there were hundreds and thousands of letters, emails, meetings, faxes, individuals speaking up, rallies and demonstrations about the government's inappropriate approach with respect to natural health products.

The message for the government is to get its act together on this because it is only going to come back and be haunted if it does not. We have to find a way to treat natural health products as a separate category, not as a food, drug or consumer product, but as a unique product that is important for Canadians and contributes a great deal to the health and well-being of Canadians.

I have said enough on that. Let me now go to the question of a government that introduces legislation that says it is concerned about consumer products and safety and yet, at the same time, cuts back in its latest budget a heck of a lot of money that is supposed to ensure a national office for workplace hazardous materials information systems, otherwise known as WHMIS.

This is an important office, which ensures there is a centre in government, a focal point for assessing and providing information around health and safety in terms of materials that are dealt with in the workplace and ensuring that all workers are given the benefit of information about hazardous materials they work with, that there is active international right-to-know legislation before them, that there is a global classification system that includes all the previously identified dangerous chemicals, not leaving some out because of pressure from the industry.

This cutback amounts to about $2.6 million over two years. The Canadian Labour Congress and other national labour organizations have clearly indicated that this cutback will eliminate the national office. It will totally cut back the focal point within Health Canada to ensure that WHMIS has an active national office. It is a serious cutback and it flies in the face of all the government's talk about wanting the best possible legislation for ensuring consumer safety and protection for all Canadians, no matter where they work or what kinds of jobs they are doing for our economy.

I urge the government to reconsider that cutback and to sit down with some of the trade unions and labour movements and talk about what is needed to ensure workplace health and safety and to ensure that there is active right-to-know legislation and a regulatory process in this country. Otherwise, we will have done a great disservice to workers. We will have denied their right to work in safe conditions and ensure the risks they take are minimized as much as possible.

In response to a question I asked in the House, the government announced last week that it was finally going to eliminate all lead and phthalate products beyond certain trace levels from the market. We applaud that move, but that has come about 12 years after we started raising this issue.

In almost the first year that I was elected as a member of Parliament to this place, we started raising the question of phthalates. I remember holding press conferences with samples of baby toys, teething rings, rubber ducks, plastic knapsacks and umbrellas, which kids put in their mouths, that are made of phthalates and that were then demonstrated to be dangerous in terms of the health and well-being of babies and children.

Some 12 years later, we finally have a government that is acting. Good for it for finally doing so, but what the heck took so long? Why did it take so long with lead as well? I raise these issues because if that is the pattern, it does not bode well for the application of Bill C-6, the very legislation we are dealing with at this moment. It very much depends on the will of government, the intentions of politicians and the acceptance of scientific data.

The government continues to drag its feet and ignore the science, as it is doing right now with bisphenol A. It bans bisphenol A when it comes to baby bottles but not other products. A lot more must be done to ensure that substances are identified so that products can be banned if they are dangerous beyond a reasonable doubt, so that Canadians can live with the notion that everything on the market is safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Repentigny for sharing his knowledge of Bill C-6 and for his hard work on this file. I have a question for him.

Other countries have similar laws, but inspectors from other countries go to countries of origin to inspect products before they are exported. Does Bill C-6 provide for the same kind of inspection before consumer goods leave the countries in which they were made? After all, if products are found to be unacceptable and polluting after they arrive here, they will end up in our landfills, where they will continue to pollute our water tables, among other things. Is there some way to conduct inspections before these products are exported, before foods leave their countries of origin?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in the debate, this bill is extremely important, in that it puts us on an equal footing with our trading partners, to prevent dumping in Canada. Before I conclude, I looked at the regulations in other countries, including European Union countries that had laws similar to Bill C-6, although it is one of the most advanced pieces of consumer product safety legislation in the world, and we are proud of that.

It is therefore extremely important, as my Conservative colleague said, that we be on a more or less equal footing and that our regulations be consistent with international regulations so that Canada is not used as a dumping ground.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has made a very interesting speech once again in the House, but I see one of the big deficiencies of Bill C-6. The labelling of consumer products containing hazardous materials has been more or less left out of the bill.

That, in addition to the whole area of enforcement, which I have a lot of suspicions the government will not be overly strong on the enforcement side of the bill, caused me to have great concerns about the bill, regardless of the fact that we plan to vote for it and support it.

Does the member share those concerns about the whole issue of labelling and how might we look to the future to ensure the bill gets enforced properly so we catch problems before they become huge problems?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Etobicoke North on her excellent speech and on the wonderful work she did in committee on Bill C-6.

During the entire process of the committee's examination of the bill, I had questions about the number of inspectors that will be on the ground to conduct verifications. As we have seen in many other areas under federal jurisdiction, the serious shortage of inspectors has drawn attention to the many gaps and shortfalls in the verifications carried out by those inspectors.

I would therefore like to know how my colleague, and the entire Liberal Party, sees this adjustment in the number of inspectors.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to support Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, on which our committee worked collegially for extended hours, having heard testimony from consumer products organizations, to environmental defence organizations, to toy manufacturers and struggled through challenging issues for both consumer health and well-being and for industry.

Reducing risk to human health has been a preoccupation of people, physicians and politicians for the last 5,000 years. Virtually every major advance in public health has involved the reduction or the elimination of risk, with the result being that the world is a safer place today. It is safer from accidents and deadly or incurable diseases and safer from hazardous consumer goods.

Therefore, it is the government's duty to do all it reasonably can to accurately assess and reduce risks, such as making sure that food, medicines and other products are safe. Although government can rarely hope to reduce risks to zero, it can aim to lower them to a more acceptable level and should openly and transparently communicate risk and risk-reduction strategies to the public.

The Canadian government introduced Bill C-6 in January 2009 to ensure through regulation that risk is reduced and that Canadians have access to safer consumer products. It is important for members to understand that natural health products will not be regulated under Bill C-6, but rather, under their own regulatory framework, the natural health products regulations under the Food and Drugs Act.

Bill C-6 focuses on three key areas: working to address problems before they happen, through building and improving safety throughout the supply chain; targeting the highest risks through conducting tests upon a minister's orders; and rapid response to protect the public when a problem occurs. The bill is needed as the laws overseeing consumer safety have not been thoroughly reviewed in over 40 years, and chemicals, technology and trade have all changed significantly.

For example, we live in an increasingly chemical society. Toxic chemicals are found in everyday consumer products, including art supplies, kitchenware, personal products, pet food, toys, water bottles and many products intended for babies. It is important for members to understand that over 100,000 chemicals were on the market before the 1980s and an additional 3,000 have been developed since that time. While some hazardous chemicals such as DDT and PCBs are banned, others are still widely used despite the fact that they cause cancer, mutation, or interfere with the body's reproductive function, take a long time to break down, accumulate in the body and are toxic, and have serious and irreversible effects on humans and the environment.

When researchers test the air in our homes, the average reading for volatile organic compounds increases in areas where cleaners are stored. CBC's Marketplace showed Pledge registered over 270 parts per billion; and Clorox wipes, over 1,000 parts per billion. Anything over 500 could be a problem for people with sensitivities. Lysol disinfectant spray, however, recorded 1,200 parts per million, a thousand times higher than Clorox.

Bill C-6 is important because it would fill many regulatory gaps and give government the power to issue recalls and raise fines. Companies and their directors, officers and employees may be held criminally liable for contravention and penalized up to $5 million. Specifically the bill would prohibit the manufacture, importation, advertising and sale of a consumer product that is a danger to human health or safety, is the subject of a recall, or does not meet the regulatory requirements that apply to the product.

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

Bill C-6 would also give regulators the power to order manufacturers and importers to conduct tests on a product, provide documents related to those studies, and compile any information required to confirm compliance. The bill would also give inspectors new wide-ranging powers, including the power to order a recall if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety. These powers may be invoked even when there is a lack of full scientific certainty.

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

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

The committee struggled through key questions such as should the bill phase out or ban known carcinogens and other toxic chemicals in consumer products? Science is continually evolving and experts might not always know how dangerous chemicals really are, particularly for children, who are not little adults.

In fact, children have special vulnerabilities to the toxic effects of chemicals, because they are constantly growing. They breathe more air, consume more food, and drink more water than adults in proportion to their weight. They virtually live on the floor. Everything goes into their mouths, and their basic body systems are still developing. Exposure to chemicals at critical stages in their physical and cognitive development may have severe long-term consequences for health.

Priority concerns for children include exposure to air pollutants, arsenic, lead, mercury, pesticides and persistent organic pollutants. Dr. Gideon Koren, a pediatrician at the Hospital for Sick Children, asks:

How can we, as one of the most advanced countries in the world, allow these to enter our household for small children, without the appropriate testing to see that it's safe?

In October 2008, Canada became the first country in the world to ban the import and sale of polycarbonate baby bottles containing bisphenol A, or BPA, a chemical used in the lining of canned beverages and food. The chemical mimics estrogen in the body, and researchers have found links between BPA and numerous health problems, including cancer, diabetes, heart disease and metabolic disorders. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found BPA in the urine of over 90% of Americans tested.

Committee members also explored whether the bill should include a mandatory testing and labelling scheme, whether the government will dedicate the necessary resources to enforce the bill, and whether the bill goes far enough to protect the health of Canadians from toxic imports.

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

Other important questions addressed by the committee included what is a safe chemical and a safe threshold, and can cumulative and synergistic effects of exposure be addressed?

A May 2009 study suggests that chemicals, including BPA, pesticides and phthalates, found in many cleaning, cosmetic and food products pose a real and cumulative threat to male fertility, namely feminization of boys in the womb. Prior to this study, demasculinization effects due to chemical pollutants in the environment were reported in many species of wildlife.

While exposure to a single chemical may cause no harm, the cumulative effect could be at least partly to blame for sperm counts falling, by blocking the action of testosterone in the womb.

Richard Sharpe, the researcher, reported:

Because it is the summation of effect of hormone-disrupting chemicals that is critical, and the number of such chemicals that humans are exposed to is considerable, this provides the strongest possible incentive to minimise human exposure to all relevant hormone disruptors, especially women planning pregnancy, as it is obvious that the higher the exposure the greater the risk.

The committee also considered the possibility of a phase-out schedule, what chemicals should be considered, how might a carcinogen be identified, and according to what lists of hazardous chemicals. Will the Globally Harmonized System of the Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, or GHS, be available in the future? Would a labelling system make sense, and if so, what products should be labelled and how should they be labelled?

The discussions were fulsome and wide-ranging. Other important questions were, what guidance, if any, does the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, otherwise known as Proposition 65, provide? This law requires companies to warn the public of potentially dangerous toxins in food. California has filed lawsuits seeking a range of warnings, including the mercury content of canned tuna and the presence of lead in Mexican candy.

A particular concern to industry is acrylamide, a chemical linked to cancer that forms in starchy foods cooked at high temperatures, such as french fries and potato chips.

The committee also explored what other approaches have been taken to eliminate toxic chemicals in the production process and whether substitution of safer alternatives is required. What do other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, Massachusetts, and now Ontario, have to offer?

A key commitment under the Ontario Toxics Reduction Act is to reduce Ontarians' exposures to toxic substances by requiring businesses that employ 10 or more people and involve 10,000 kilograms or more of specific substances to report and track harmful chemicals and develop pollution prevention plans. The implementation of these plans, like a successful law in Massachusetts, is voluntary.

Bill C-6 is an important step to protecting Canadians and was largely and widely supported by witnesses.

I would, however, like to stress that we cannot continue to repeat the key mistake of the past, namely responding late to early warnings as we did with benzene and PCBs.

Ever since anemia was diagnosed among young women engaged in the manufacture of bicycle tires in the 19th century, benzene was known to be a powerful bone marrow poison. Recommendations made in the U.K. and the U.S. in the 1920s for substitution of benzene with less toxic solvents went unheeded. Benzene-related diseases of the bone marrow continued to increase dramatically through the first half of the 20th century. Benzene was not withdrawn from consumer products in the U.S. until 1978, and this was done by manufacturers on a voluntary basis.

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

Bill C-6 would significantly improve the product safety regime in Canada, which would translate into improved health and safety for Canadians. Product safety is in everyone's best interest and everyone has a role to play, Canadians, government and industry.

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

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

How many chemicals are therefore currently on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act's environmental registry? How many of these have been comprehensively tested for any risks to ecosystems and people? What is the projected timeline for testing untested chemicals?

Members should think about what chemicals they are exposed to each and every day, from washing their hands to brushing their teeth to shampooing their hair to eating their breakfast cereal. What timeline for testing for toxicity, longevity in the environment and bio-accumulation in our bodies is acceptable?

Going forward, the question that begs to be asked is this. What world do we want 25 years from now, in 2034? It is my fervent hope that Bill C-6 is the beginning of a dialogue with Canadians with regard to what chemicals we are exposed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to launch the debate at third reading of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

We heard at second reading that there is strong support in this House for strengthening consumer product safety. This proposed consumer product safety legislation seeks to provide improved oversight of a broad range of products, including toys for our children, and it aims to fulfill a promise made by this government in last November's Speech from the Throne.

To begin, I would like to highlight the legislation's key points. The proposed act focuses on three areas: active prevention, targeted oversight and rapid response.

First, let us talk about active prevention. The act will introduce a general prohibition against the manufacture, importation, advertisement or sale of consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety.

The new legislation will allow Health Canada to address consumer products in Canada that pose an unreasonable danger to the health or safety of the public. Compliance and enforcement will be strengthened through maximum fines of up to $5 million for some of the worst offences. That is a big step up from the current maximum penalty of $1 million, and this change would put us in step with our major trading partners.

Our government plans to work closely with the industry to ensure changes are understood and properly implemented. Workshops and other information sharing opportunities will be used to promote awareness of the new legislation.

Second, Bill C-6 focuses on targeted oversight. This is especially important for products where the risks may not yet be fully understood or that pose the greatest potential hazard to the public.

The proposed act would give the Minister of Health the authority to order a supplier to conduct safety tests and submit results to the minister. It would also require suppliers to notify Health Canada and, in some cases, its partners through the supply chain of defects or serious product-related incidents, including near miss incidents where injury has been averted.

Finally, this proposed legislation also includes measures to allow for a speedy response to problems once they are identified.

Under the proposed new act, we want to be able to move quickly and decisively to protect the public when a problem occurs. To do so, we need the ability to order recalls of unsafe consumer products and require suppliers to maintain accurate records to enable quick tracking of products that need to be pulled.

To implement these prevention, surveillance and rapid response activities, more consumer product safety inspectors will be hired, creating a more complete safety net for all consumer products. Through Bill C-6, our government is demonstrating its commitment to consumer product safety by proposing action that Canadians want and need.

The amended Bill C-6 we have before us today reflects the extensive analysis of the members of the Standing Committee on Health. Over the past month, the committee heard from government witnesses and 33 other witnesses representing over 24 organizations.

In total there were five separate sessions devoted to review and discussion of Bill C-6, two of which were extended. In these sessions all voices were heard and all opinions were closely considered. The result of the committee's hard work is an amended bill that we think well reflects the underlying policy intent of the bill, as well as some other key aspects of concern to some witnesses.

There were thirteen amendments to the bill, of which six were put forth by the government and seven by the opposition. Government amendments included delivering on a commitment made by the Minister of Health to make it crystal clear that natural health products would not be regulated by this act.

The other government amendments were housekeeping in nature to clarify technical aspects of the bill. For instance, Bill C-6 was amended to specify that documents that a person must retain shall only be retained for six years.

The seven opposition amendments addressed two key areas: consultation and information sharing. The first group of amendments introduced provisions into Bill C-6 to ensure that the Standing Committee on Health would be consulted on foundational regulations that will be created under this new act.

The government remains committed to moving quickly with proposed regulations and believes that new regulations made under Bill C-6 will benefit from the analysis and advice from the Standing Committee on Health.

The second group of amendments demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that Canadians have the information they need. As such, the standing committee approved an amendment to Bill C-6 to explicitly state that the minister may disclose to the public information about a danger to human health or safety that a consumer product poses.

Finally, at report stage, the House agreed that Bill C-6 should be amended to include provisions for an advisory committee, which would support the implementation of the proposed Canada Consumer Products Safety Act. I thank the hon. member for St. Paul's for this suggestion.

The advisory committee will provide a forum for the exchange of informed views from the full range of experts, building on the skills and knowledge that already exist within the department, and it will provide valuable information on industry trends that may need to be addressed within the legislation or its supporting regulations.

As I conclude, I would like to remind my colleagues that Canada's consumer product legislation is 40 years and has fallen behind other jurisdictions and its update is overdue. By benefiting from a wide diversity of expert views, Canadians can be assured that this government is committed to building as strong and effective product safety regime as possible.

As a result, Bill C-6 will put in place modern safeguards and strong compliance enforcement mechanisms, and Canadian consumers deserve that. With Bill C-6, the government will have the tools it needs to act swiftly and decisively to help protect Canadians. We want there to be a greater incentive for companies to think safety first more than ever before.

We want to level the playing field for reputable companies by having a stronger hammer to bear against peddlers of unsafe goods.

I know all parties in the House support consumer product safety. I believe all members should therefore join me in supporting Bill C-6.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

moved that Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one last motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the report stage motion to C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Health, be amended by replacing the words “advise him or her”, in the first paragraph, with the words “provide him or her with public advice”; that the motion be deemed adopted as amended; that Bill C-6 be deemed concurred in at report stage with a further amendment; and that the said Bill be ordered for consideration at third reading stage later this day.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government laid out the bills that in the government's view were important to Canadians.

Bill C-26 on auto theft has been at the justice committee for some time now. Bill C-34 went to the justice committee yesterday. I do not know how the committee does two bills at one time. Bill C-35 was introduced on June 1. It has not even started second reading and I am sure second reading will take up a lot of time. Bill C-36 was introduced on June 5 and will ultimately go to the justice committee.

Bill C-6 is here in the House at report stage and can commence. That would certainly be one piece of legislation. Bill C-31, the tobacco bill, went to committee on June 3. The committee needs to call witnesses. We will not see that bill before June 23. Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, is the last one on the list in terms of government importance, and it would appear the government has no intention whatsoever of calling this bill because of the difficulties.

What the government has not included is Bill C-8, which I think is very important.

It appears to me the government has selected priorities which in fact are not the priorities of Canadians and do not justify extended hours for no progress whatsoever.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are open to talking about it.

That does not mean that we will automatically agree to any request the government might make to extend sitting hours, but if debate on a certain bill were about to end and we still needed a few more hours, of course we would give that careful thought.

I want to add something else. I took a look at what was tabled every Tuesday for the past month. We have covered nearly everything the Leader of the Government wanted us to, as I said. He wanted bills in the House to be ready for royal assent; he got all but one of them—Bill C-6—and that is expected to happen around June 10. He wanted four bills to be sent to the Senate. Two of them are in the Senate. There are two more to go. So that makes three. Bill C-20 is in committee and should be back here soon. The parliamentary leader wanted the committee's report to be done by June, and that is likely to happen.

We have a problem with Bill C-19. I would remind the House that Bill C-8 and Bill C-23 were not included in the government's agenda that ends June 23. I therefore assume that the government does not plan to address those bills before the fall. We will debate them in the fall.

I therefore do not believe there is enough material to keep the House busy for 11 days from now until June 23. Once again, if we need to extend the sitting hours occasionally, the government can rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will be open to discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), except for Friday, June 12 and Friday, June 19, 2009, commencing on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 and concluding on Tuesday, June 23, 2009, the House shall continue to sit until 10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by stating what might be obvious to folks who watch the proceedings of Parliament closely. By and large, I would have to say that this session of Parliament has been quite amicable and cooperative. I appreciate the efforts by the opposition to help the government get its agenda through Parliament.

As I recently said at a fundraising event for the Children's Bridge Foundation, I was reflecting on this place and reflected that this truly is the house of the common people. I also reflected on that word “common”. I thought that during the time of a minority Parliament, it is important for all of us to reflect on what we have in common: the things that we share as legislators regardless of our partisan differences. Regardless of what it is we want to see for Canada, I do believe very sincerely that all legislators and parliamentarians have the best interests of the country at heart.

I think that it is important that we try to work on those things that we have in common. I believe that there have been many instances in the last five or six months in this place when we have done that. I want to begin my remarks by commending the opposition for oftentimes trying to look beyond partisan differences, look to what we have in common, and actually accomplish things for the people of Canada.

While I am pleased with the progress that we have made thus far, not only as a government but as a Parliament working collectively, there is much more that we can accomplish for Canadians. As I have been saying about this cooperative atmosphere that is sometimes prevalent here, I think that some people who watch the daily proceedings of the House of Commons would actually dispute that.

If one were to watch the 45-minute question period every day, one might be surprised to hear me say that we actually work cooperatively and quite well together. While question period serves an important purpose and is the main focus for the media, no acts are amended, no new laws are created, and no funds for important programs are approved during that period of time.

Today, for example, there are 285 minutes dedicated for government legislation and 60 minutes for private members' business. Lots of time and effort goes into these minutes each day. More importantly, they can also be productive minutes. Thus far this session, our House has passed some 25 bills, including Bill C-33, which restores war veterans allowances to Allied veterans and their families. This required all-party consent and we all agreed that this was in the best interests of not only our veterans but the country.

Bill C-14, our bill to fight organized crime, is currently before committee in the other place. Bill C-29, the agricultural loans bill, will guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. This is all important legislation that we worked together on to further it along the parliamentary agenda.

Our Standing Orders include a specific provision for the extension of sitting hours during the last two sitting weeks in June. In fact, I reflect on my 16 years in this place. It has often been a point of confusion when members, and especially rookie members, look at the calendar and see the last couple of weeks with asterisks beside the dates. They think that those weeks are disposable somehow, but they are not. They are that way because the government has the right to serve, without notice, the motion that I am moving today to extend hours and work into the evening.

At this point in my remarks, I also want to inject the fact that up until quite recently in parliamentary history, the House of Commons sat into the evening for debate almost every night. It has been a relatively new phenomenon that we do not have evening sittings. The only exceptions to that in the recent Parliaments have been for emergency debates or take note debates. Other than that, we do not usually sit in the evenings. It is quite a new phenomenon.

What I am moving today is not something unusual. These rules provide a mechanism to advance government business before members leave Ottawa to work in their constituencies over the summer.

We have a lot of important work to do before the House rises for the summer. After we subtract the three days for opposition supply days and the time for private members' business, we only have 33 hours and 45 minutes remaining to complete our government business before the House rises on the evening of June 23.

Extending the House sitting hours over the next two weeks would allow us to make progress on government bills, such as: Bill C-26, legislation to tackle property theft, which we expect to receive back from the justice committee this week; Bill C-34, the protecting victims from sexual offenders act, which would strengthen the national sex offender registry to provide the police with more effective tools to protect children from sexual predators; Bill C-35, the justice for victims of terrorism act; Bill C-36, which would repeal the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code so that criminals who commit first or second degree murder will no longer be able to apply for early parole; and Bill C-6, the consumer products safety bill, which was reported from committee yesterday. Adopting this bill would protect the health and safety of Canadians by allowing the recall of unsafe consumer products. I urge members to adopt that bill with the utmost speed when we call it for debate later this week.

Other bills we would like to make progress on include: Bill C-32, which cracks down on tobacco marketing aimed at youth, which received unanimous support at second reading and we hope that health committee can report the bill back shortly so that the House can consider its passage before the summer; and Bill C-23, the Colombia free trade bill.

While not unanimous, I am grateful for the support of most members opposite in enabling the House to pass Bill C-24, the Peru free trade bill. Both Bill C-24 and Bill C-23 would expand market access for Canadian companies at a difficult time. I inject that this is especially important to our farmers who will have new marketing opportunities open up for them because of these two free trade bills.

This is just some of the important work to be done on our government's commitments. It does not take into account additional new legislation that we continue to introduce every week.

I notice the justice minister is sitting here and nodding as I relay a number of justice bills. The Minister of Justice has been extremely active in bringing forward a succession of important justice reforms. This is one of the reasons that I ran for Parliament 16 years ago. I know many legislators on both sides of the House hold near and dear to their hearts the importance of protecting victims and their families and of reforming and changing the justice system in our country to ensure that criminals are held accountable for their actions.

My intent regarding this period of extension would be, and I have discussed this with the opposition House leaders and whips, to set a goal each day as to what we wanted to accomplish. When we accomplished that goal, we would adjourn for the day. Even though the motion says that we would sit until 10 o'clock Monday to Thursday, it may not be necessary to sit until 10. We could work co-operatively and collectively together. If we actually achieved our goals that day at 7 o'clock or 7:20 p.m., we would see the clock at 10 and the House would rise. I think that is reasonable.

I am asking for a simple management tool to maximize our progress with the weeks that are left, a little over two weeks. I am not asking for a shortcut. I am not asking to curtail debate. I am proposing that we work a little harder to get the job done. As I said, I believe I am making a reasonable approach of adjourning each day after we meet modest goals. All parties would agree to these goals. This is not a blank cheque. I cannot adjourn the House without support from the opposition, nor can I prevent an adjournment motion from being adopted without opposition support. The motion has co-operation built right into it.

Sitting late in June is part of the normal process, as I referred to earlier. It is one of the procedures required to make Parliament work and be more efficient. According to the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons:

Although this Standing Order dates back only to 1982, it reflects a long-standing practice which, in its variations, has existed since Confederation. The practice has meant that in virtually every session since 1867, in the days leading up to prorogation or, more recently, to the summer adjournment, the House has arranged for longer hours of sitting in order to complete or advance the business still pending.

A motion pursuant to Standing Order 27 has only been refused once and that was last year. Even under the minority government of Paul Martin, the motion had sufficient opposition support to be adopted. There is bound to be some business that one opposition party wants to avoid, but generally there should be enough interest on the part of the opposition to get legislation passed before the summer recess.

The House leader of the official opposition is often on his feet after question period trying to get speedy passage to some of our justice bills. Here is a chance for him, and collectively Parliament, to actually get that done.

The NDP members complain that we accuse them of delaying legislation when all they want to do, or so they say, is put up a few more speakers to a bill. Here again we are giving them the opportunity to do exactly that.

I am therefore seeking the support of all members to extend our sitting hours so that we can complete work on important bills which will address the concerns of Canadians before we adjourn for the summer.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. Your committee has examined the bill, decided to report it with amendments, and ordered its reprint. I wish to thank all members of the committee for their hard work and cooperation.

[Paul Glover]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to comment on this amendment.

The first point I would make is that this amendment would cause the department problems with respect to the scope of the amendment, as it differs quite significantly from what is in the original Bill C-6. Therefore, the resource implications around this are such that I would not be able to certify—as currently resourced for Bill C-6 and the anticipation of it—that we would be able to deliver these. It is a very broad departure and would have significant resource implications.

With respect to some of the more specific comments, I've already spoken about CEPA, which again does much of this, including children's toys and products. It does take care of the most vulnerable populations and does specific assessments taking those into account, whether they be children, aboriginal, or unborn children. There are a number of ways in which the assessments are done that are designed to be extremely protective and very conservative when designed to assess the substance and be protective of health.

With respect to some of the specific comments, such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer, those are ones that have specific health points. I would like to inform the committee that CEPA looks at broader sets of health points beyond only cancer and is concerned about developmental and reproductive health end points. Therefore, it is in fact more protective of human health. So while we are also introducing duplication, it is on a narrower set of criteria than that which exists under CEPA.

Furthermore, IARC, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, is very clear in their own preamble that this is a list of substances that are known may cause cancer in humans or in animals and they do not suggest this is a proxy for individual jurisdictions, but that each jurisdiction should do their own assessment. This would be using that list for a purpose which the authors acknowledge right upfront in their preamble to not use that list for.

Reviewing the list every 12 months goes back to the comment I made with respect to the workload on establishing all these limits, exemptions, and processes. This would be incredibly resource-intensive for literally hundreds of thousands of consumer products.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The idea here is that there is a particular subset of goods that creates greater vulnerability than general consumer products, and that's children's toys and children's products. We know that the impact of toxins on children is not in a ratio to weight. If the child has one-tenth the weight of an adult, that doesn't mean that one-tenth of the dose would have the same impact on the child. In fact, especially with babies, when their systems are still developing and their neurological development is still under way, products can have a much greater impact than the ratio to weight would suggest. We have to be more precautionary with babies.

We also know that there are conditions we don't yet have an explanation for, such as the explosion of incidents of childhood autism. I'm not suggesting that I know what the cause of that is, but this kind of situation causes us, the Liberal caucus members, to want to be more precautionary in how we approach Bill C-6.

So that's what the rewrite of the amendment is intended to do.

If you look at the schedules that cover which chemicals would no longer be allowed under Bill C-6, it's a pretty short list. If you go to the lists of chemicals that have been identified through cancer research and are listed as in new paragraph 8.1(1)(a), there's a larger list. What we're talking about is coming up with a broader list of chemicals that would place onus differently.

The onus in the general bill is that, other than for a very short list, the onus is on industry to figure out whether something is harmful in a toy or child's product, and they may not find that out. It may be affecting children for years, as some of the flame retardants and so on were. This is a more precautionary approach whereby we take the chemicals that have been identified as a problem for children and the onus changes. We say of them that unless it can be shown that it is necessary to use one or that it is not actually harmful, we consider these as being harmful, and they should be phased out over a defined time period. That's essentially what this amendment is about.

We have a printing or editing error in new subclause 8.1(4). I don't know whether this is the time to read the correction into the—

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

I think people will have it now in front of them.

The issue with the amendment is that we felt the complementary nature of CEPA and Bill C-6 is important and admirable, but it is important to be absolutely clear that any harmful substance is not just affecting immediate human health and safety. But if it was released into the environment, then over time it would be one of these exposures that would be bad for the environment and eventually bad for humans and animals. We explain that part in the various examples.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, we had considerable discussion with representatives of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, with industry representatives and with Option consommateurs. They told us that the number of inspectors is a serious problem. Witnesses have often told us that there are not enough inspectors.

We all recognize the merits of Bill C-6, but there is a serious shortage of inspectors. This bill will become meaningless if there are insufficient inspectors. So it is extremely important that the bill provide for sufficient staff and inspectors.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, it is useful to emphasize this. I move that Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 31 on page 9 the following new clause:

17.1 For greater certainty, the minister may disclose to the public information about a danger to human health or safety that a consumer product poses.

The bill is clearer with the obvious statement that the minister may communicate the information to the public.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I move that Bill C-6 be amended by replacing line 31 on p. 9 with the following:

or the environment, if the disclosure of the information is essential to address the danger.

After having discussed this with Option consommateurs and the industry, we think that this amendment is helpful in anticipating a danger of this kind and in making sure that the danger really is great.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate this amendment, which follows through on the government's commitment to ensure that Bill C-6 doesn't have implications for natural products. I did want to just raise a concern around the general field, because there are few opportunities to do so.

We've all been hearing recently from representatives of the Canadian Health Food Association expressing concern about the backlog. We had been told that the backlog was being dealt with. Our understanding, based on meetings today, is that this is not the case. In fact, if the backlog is being dealt with at all, it is because products are being denied that request and applications are being turned down. We understand that there has been little effort on the part of the department to ensure that industry and NHP are working together to make sure there are some common understandings about safety and efficacy standards and to expedite natural health products as much as possible.

So I would like, Madam Chair, some indication from the parliamentary secretary that we might have a report to the committee or some follow-up to those concerns. Even though we're passing this amendment and we appreciate the work that has been done to get us here, we know there are big concerns that should be dealt with. We've got to find a way, especially with the stated deadline of 2010, which is causing enormous concern in the industry. I think their feeling is that we need to actually get rid of that deadline, or find a process to accelerate the approval process, or find some way to begin to expedite things in a meaningful way. We need to deal with the very serious concerns that both the industry and the people who are using natural health products are raising.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to committee.

Today we're going to try to do things as tightly as we can. I understand there are members of Parliament who need to catch planes following our meeting, so their timelines are very tight.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 30, 2009, we are examining Bill C-6, an Act respecting the safety of consumer products. We have with us today from the Department of Health Paul Glover, Robert Ianiro, Charles Ethier, and Diane Labelle.

Welcome. We're so glad that you can join us in clause-by-clause for this very exciting event this afternoon.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 is postponed.

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4--Consumer products)

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am only too happy to respond as I do every Thursday, with transparency, openness and in a spirit of co-operation with my colleagues across the way.

Today and tomorrow we will consider Bill C-15, the drug offence bill. However, as my colleague the Minister of Justice noted, the NDP members seem to be unnecessarily dragging the debate on the bill out. We will also consider Bill C-25, truth in sentencing; Bill C-34, protecting victims from sex offenders; Bill C-19, anti-terrorism; and Bill C-30, the Senate ethics bill.

Next week I intend to add to this list, Bill S-4, identity theft; and Bill C-6, consumer product safety.

As always, I will give priority to any bills that have been reported back from our hard-working standing committees.

In the response to the question about the allotted days, within the next week I will be designating Thursday, June 11 as an allotted day.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Liberal House leader often asks specific questions about specific bills on Thursday, so I hope you will entertain a few comments of my own.

First of all, I would like to recognize that, to date at least, there has been good co-operation from the opposition in moving our legislative agenda forward, not only in this chamber but in the other place as well. I want to thank the opposition for that co-operation.

However, yesterday we passed in this place, at all stages and without debate, Bill C-33, the bill that will extend benefits to allied veterans and their families. For this bill to become law, we need the same co-operation in the Senate. I would urge the opposition House leader to deliver that message to his senators.

I understand that the Governor General is here today and could actually give royal assent to the bill. It would not only be symbolic but a substantial gesture to those veterans who are reflecting on and participating in the 65th anniversary of D-Day on June 6, this weekend.

The other bill I want to specifically mention is Bill C-29, the agricultural loans bill. In one of his Thursday questions, the member for Wascana took an interest in this bill. He suggested, and I quote from Hansard, that “we might be able to dispose of it at all stages”. I appreciate that level of support for this important and time-sensitive bill in the House, but the member needs to coordinate his support with his Senate colleagues in order to get this bill passed and the increased loans made available to our farmers in a timely manner.

Any communication from the member for Wascana and any persuasiveness he may bring to bear upon his Liberal colleagues in the other place would be greatly appreciated by me and the government.

[Andrew King, Department Leader, Health, Safety and Environment, United Steelworkers]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present today.

I have provided a copy of my comments. I apologize to you that they are not also available in French, but I should let you know that I found out yesterday about noon that I would be here this afternoon.

I appreciate the amount of work you've been involved in with regard to this very important legislation and have taken the time to review the comments of people who have come before you.

By way of background, the United Steelworkers is an international union, with members across Canada and the United States. In Canada our union is very diverse, with members in almost every sector of the economy.

As our name implies, we have a long history in mining, steelmaking, metalworking, and manufacturing. From that history, we have a lot of experience with toxic chemicals and the diseases they cause. We were involved in bringing WHMIS, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, into Canada in the 1980s, and to this day we are still dealing with the impacts of chemical exposures on our members and their communities. Recent occupational disease clinics in Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury attracted hundreds of people. We are supporters of the recent Ontario Toxic Chemicals Reduction Act, currently in third reading, as well as community right to know at the municipal level.

The toxicity of many of the chemicals we are concerned about in the environment and consumer products today was originally demonstrated in the lives of workers and the damage it did to their health. Many of the strategies that speak of controlling exposures, limiting risk instead of advising hazards, and personal protection responsibility were tried and failed in the occupational setting. Years ago we were told there were safe limits of exposures to most chemicals. Since then exposure limits have become lower and lower, as studies continue to show there is no safe level of exposure to toxic chemicals, especially if the exposure is repeated and over a lifetime.

We need to talk about the total burden of chemicals in our bodies from all sources, including the environment. This government's and the Ontario government's investment in green chemistry innovation at Queen's University in Kingston is recognition that we have to find a better way to produce the chemicals we need.

Our membership was deeply moved in 2007 when a wave of toxic toys hit Canada, many of which were contaminated by lead. After a decade of fighting in North America to have lead removed from paints and gasoline, after decades of controlling the exposure in smelters, mills, and other industries, something is wrong when the system allows lead to be used in consumer products.

Some of us still remember that it was the impact of our children originally being exposed to lead in communities in Canada in the 1960s that gave impetus to the regular reform that reduced those exposures and gave us the legislation we're reviewing now.

It did not seem right to us that such a well-known hazard should be allowed back into Canada by trade. Our activists became involved in a Get the Lead Out campaign across Canada and the U.S., adding our voice to others who felt that something had to be done. Product safety must not be left to voluntary systems and the luck of the draw.

I might say in parenthesis here that we were quite astounded at the response we got from our members. We have a long history and involvement in occupational health and safety and activists who are trained to deal with those issues, but it wasn't those activists who responded to the problem of toxic toys. It was the average member, the member who had children, particularly women, who were at the forefront of making this an issue for our organization and making it a key point in a campaign that led us to distributing information and becoming part of what was originally the movement toward Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, and now Bill C-6.

We are also encouraged to be here by our environmental partner, Environmental Defence. Aaron Freeman, the research director, has already addressed you. Our alliance with Environmental Defence focuses on the impacts of toxic chemicals and climate change. Environmental Defence's “Toxic Nation” campaign has shown that the challenge we face is much bigger than we think. It confirms the experiences of workers that the chemicals are in our bodies now. We are here to support their efforts and their position--and of many of the other environmental groups that I note have already spoken to you--that we need to reduce exposures through consumer products.

To quote the title of the book that Environmental Defence's chair and executive director recently co-authored, we must prevent Death by Rubber Duck,, a book that I highly recommend to each of you if you have not had a chance to review it.

To the point of our remarks regarding Bill C-6, like many others who have appeared before you, and most of the people here this evening, we support the goal and objectives of the bill. It is important that there be a mandatory reporting system for toxins and hazards in consumer products and a clear system for enforcement. While the bill has a number of these important features, it needs to be strengthened in order to achieve its goals as described in the preamble.

In particular, we support amendments suggested by Environmental Defence. Strengthening the bill now will benefit us all in the long run. The bill provides strong language regarding prohibition, but is weak in identifying the problems proactively and sets the bar for action too high.

The bill needs a proactive system of inspection and verification. In this regard, I note the previous evidence that was given by Mr. Glover on behalf of the government in regard to this bill. He in fact spoke about the bill having a proactive nature to it. I must confess to being surprised that he characterized it that way, because it seems to me the system, with all the improvements proposed, is still fundamentally reactive. Until someone discovers a problem--inadvertently, if something has happened, or if a group of doctors notice it in their patients--nothing is done. There is no system through which to go and get proactive information. And that, particularly when you're dealing with imports, which, as was previously noted, are a key part of this problem, needs to be part of the system.

What is needed is an administrative system to ensure that manufacturers and importers--and I emphasize them in particular--are testing their supply chain to make sure toxic chemicals are not getting into the products. The government needs a system of independent verification through random reviews. A testing protocol is required to protect consumers and to raise the bar for company testing. Without that protection, the legislation is at risk of encouraging "Don't ask, don't tell".

We strongly believe that there needs to be the policing function as outlined in the act. In addition, however, we believe there needs to be an administrative review program to ensure that the highest levels of performance and protection are being followed.

[Mel Fruitman, Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Consumers' Association of Canada is a 62-year-old, independent, not-for-profit, volunteer-based organization, with a national office in Ottawa, and provincial and territorial representatives. Our mandate is to inform and educate consumers on marketplace issues, to advocate for consumers with government and industry, and to work with government and industry to solve marketplace problems in beneficial ways.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-6. We are pleased to see the introduction of this important piece of consumer legislation, after more than two decades of relative inattention by all levels of government, and we urge you to help hasten its passage.

The current legislation came into being almost 40 years ago during a period when consumer activism reached its peak. It was then that people began to realize that there was a huge imbalance in the marketplace—consumers were entering into transactions with increasingly sophisticated business operators. At that time, legislation was simply playing catch-up with all of the economic, financial, and demographic developments that had occurred since the end of World War II.

In the interval, Canada has seen changes that are just as dramatic, if not more so. We have become a nation of consumers made up of many ethnic backgrounds, living in various economic circumstances and carrying various levels of debt. Where we used to eat mostly locally produced food and buy products that may have been manufactured by our neighbours, we now purchase a huge range of goods of increased complexity, the majority of which come from outside the country. Even many of our services are outsourced. The balance has again tilted dramatically so that Canadian consumers are at a disadvantage in the marketplace. With the proliferation of new products, most Canadians feel that our health and safety has been compromised. This impression has been reinforced by items such as tainted toothpaste, lead paint in toys, tainted seafood, salmonella, and listeriosis outbreaks.

This leads me to two of the most significant provisions in Bill C-6. One is the change from the proscriptive regime of the Hazardous Products Act, in which only listed or designated products were covered, to a results-based regime, which prohibits the supply to consumers of products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety. The results-based regime gives us the flexibility to meet changing market conditions and to react immediately when a threat is identified, rather than having to go through a lengthy regulatory process.

The second provision flows from the first. In the past, when a hazardous product was identified, the minister could do nothing more than, in effect, go cap in hand and ask the supplier to recall the offending item. If the supplier did not voluntarily do so, the minister was powerless to force the action. Thus many products that should not have been offered for sale remained on retailers' shelves. Now the government will be able to remove and recall offending products, without relying on the good conscience of the supplier, and will even be able to cause action to be taken at the supplier's expense, should the response be inadequate or untimely.

This bill also provides for fines and penalties to be brought to bear for non-compliance. This is something that was sorely missing in all previous legislation and is needed to encourage appropriate behaviour. Additionally, the establishment of a mechanism for mandatory reporting of adverse events and incidents will help establish an early-warning system, identifying problems much sooner in their sale cycle.

The Consumers' Association recognizes that there will be a learning process on the part of all participants, and the sooner we get started the better. Given the current economic downturn, sales of consumer goods have declined somewhat. While some may argue that this reduces the urgency for passage of the bill, it is feared that this climate may encourage some suppliers to cut corners in order to retain profitability.

With the passage of Bill C-6, the Canadian government will have taken a big step towards improving consumer protection. Once this has been done, the Consumers' Association of Canada suggests that the government, through this and other appropriate committees, give consideration to raising the status of Canadian consumers and their marketplace needs. Nowhere in Canada, either provincially or federally, is there a cabinet-level department devoted solely to consumer protection. Where there is an agency with this responsibility, it is always combined with some other function, which is often inappropriate. When Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada was broken up many years ago, many of its functions were hived off to other departments, with a rump group known as the Office of Consumer Affairs establishing itself in Industry Canada. Perhaps most inappropriately, food safety came under the aegis of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which reports through the Minister of Agriculture, who is also responsible for promoting the sale of foodstuffs.

That was an aside to make us think about something for the future. But once again, I urge the committee to help effect early passage of Bill C-6 and bring Canadian consumer protection into the 21st century.

I tried to be very brief and highlight some of our main considerations. Thank you for listening. I'll be pleased to try to answer your questions.

[Emile Therien]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm accompanied by Ethel Archard, who also retired from the Canada Safety Council. So you can tell what the council does with their old employees: they keep them busy. Anyway, thank you again for having us.

Globalization and new technologies have led to an influx of products into the Canadian market. The Hazardous Products Act urgently needs to be amended to meet the challenges of the 21st century. But that does not mean we need a brand-new law. The Canada Safety Council recommends that the government build upon the existing act by amending it to address current and future needs. That legislation has been in place for over 40 years, and has served Canadians extremely well--that is, as long as it has been properly resourced and promoted.

In the interest of public health and safety, there is absolutely no need to start from scratch with a new law that may not be fully implemented for many years. The approach that should be taken is to amend the existing Hazardous Products Act. Some of the perceived inadequacies in the act have resulted from the lack of proper enforcement. To be effective, laws must be enforced. This requires the government's commitment to provide resources: financial, human, and otherwise. Effective regulatory oversight is absolutely critical to public safety. I would like to start by noting that when it comes to consumer product safety, imported products are the major offenders.

In early 2007, tainted pet food from China killed thousands of dogs and cats in North America. Later that year, the U.S. recalled 34 million toys and other products made in China due to lead paint and small powerful magnets that children could easily swallow. Based on the U.S. recall, there would have been over three million of the made-in-China products in Canada. Most are likely still in use. Some will find their way into attics and garage sales, and eventually all will end up in landfill sites, at a disastrous cost to our environment. It would make sense to assume that these incidents would have prompted the Canadian government to take action. Obviously, our existing hazardous product laws needed to be enforced with a focus on imports from China. But that is not what happened.

In October 2008, The Toronto Star published an investigative report on toxic toys being sold in the greater Toronto area. The Toronto Star shopped at 18 stores, large and small, and found high levels of lead in one of every four products purchased. Some of the products were even labelled lead-free. One necklace clasp tested at 150 times above the limit. The investigation in The Toronto Star found that there are only 46 inspectors monitoring stores for all of Canada. Of the 13 in Ontario, 11 are in Toronto and two are left to cover the rest of the province.

An importer who travels to Asia four times a year told The Toronto Star that he never sees officials spot-checking any imports whatsoever. An investigative reporter found that out. Truly it is a travesty that the government sees fit to have so few inspectors to protect Canadians from danger from hazardous goods. At that time, the then Minister of Health, Tony Clement, promised more would be hired. It would be interesting to see how many more inspectors there are today than there were in October 2008.

In November 2006 Auditor General Sheila Fraser raised concerns that Canada was failing due to the lack of enforcement to protect Canadians from dangerous products. She questioned whether there was enough funding for enforcement and even whether the government had given it any thought whatsoever. I would like to point out that not one Canadian manufacturer was implicated in dangerous products that hit the Canadian marketplace over the last while. By imposing strict new requirements, Bill C-6 may put Canadian manufacturers at a disadvantage when trying to compete with imports.

The import of dangerous products on a large scale with impunity and over such a long period of time indicates a serious problem with the enforcement of existing law. Passing a new law will not solve this problem. Amendments to existing legislation occur on a regular basis. For example, the House of Commons passed changes to the Criminal Code of Canada in April 2008 to combat cruelty to animals. The proposed anti-gang legislation will be made, if it does occur, through amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, not a brand-new Criminal Code.

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is continually updated through amendments. Bill C-9, an act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act of 1992, was introduced on February 16 of this year. It went through the House of Commons and the Senate and received royal assent on May 14, a couple of weeks ago.

A new law can have unintended negative consequences. The most obvious are the time and resources required. What will happen to product safety during this transition period? Lawyers and experts have already expressed concerns that companies will contest the very high fines in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Such challenges would slow the implementation of long-overdue measures to protect Canadians.

The bottom line is, who is responsible for product safety? Retailers cannot test everything they sell; they must rely on the supplier and ultimately the Canadian government to assure the safety of products entering and being sold in this country.

Product recalls make the consumer responsible to return unsafe products, and they do not remove all the offending products from the marketplace. For the kinds of hazardous products covered in the legislation, most consumers are indifferent to recalls—with the possible exception of high-priced items. Imposing new requirements on Canadian manufacturers will not prevent unsafe imported toys from being sold in this country.

The Hazardous Products Act needs to be updated, but a brand-new law is not needed. What is needed is the amendment of the existing act and a serious commitment to promotion and enforcement.

Thank you very much.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

We mentioned inspectors. In the listeriosis outbreak, there were not enough inspectors. Bill C-6 is all well and good, but what scares me is the severe shortage of inspectors. Mr. Burns, from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, shares my fear.

In this bill, should the government make it clear that there must be an adequate number of inspectors to do the inspections? It is all very well to pass a bill, but, if there is no one to oversee it, what have we gained?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Can you talk about other improvements to consumer product safety that are going to result from Bill C-6?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Did you?

What about your consultation on Bill C-6? Have you been actively involved with consultation on this bill?

[Gerry Harrington, Director, Public Affairs, Consumer Health Products Canada]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Dufour.

Allow me to answer in English.

The question of the release of confidential business information is a key one for an industry that is proprietary information-based, such as the consumer health products industry.

We are in a bit of an awkward spot before this committee, however, because we don't anticipate that the provisions contained in this bill will apply to our industry. We expect that the discussion will be unique to health products, once the anticipated amendments to the Food and Drugs Act come along.

Certainly we recognize that there is a public health need at times that will require proprietary information to be released; we don't contest that. We also understand that there will not be a requirement for consent from industry when that information, as an issue of public safety, needs to be released. However, we have a broader concern around the issue of notification, so that manufacturers are in a position to at least deal with the consequences of their information going into, at some level or other, the public domain. It may require business decisions that are very important, when proprietary information is one of the key assets that these companies hold.

In the broader sense of your questions, I expect that the dialogue, when we get to the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, will be a very detailed one. But in terms of the issues around Bill C-6 they could be different. I think the health products industry has some unique dimensions to it, around intellectual property protection and so forth, that make up how products are approved so that Health Canada is in the possession of key proprietary information, which may not be the case with other consumer products.

In that sense, I'm afraid there are limits to the input we can offer the committee.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks very much to our witness for taking the time to come here today.

First of all, Ms. Cooper and Ms. Gue, I would like to tell you that several of the proposals you made are already in effect in Quebec, in the Environmental Quality Act and the Pesticides Act. So, we can see that Quebec is already moving towards much more fair and equitable legislation. We encourage the federal government to follow the path that Quebec has already chosen. I will come back to that a little later.

Mr. Skinner, you told us something interesting just now about the publication of confidential information. This is extremely important, I feel, because we have to make sure that consumers are protected. That is vital, but there also must be a kind of guideline so that companies are not unfairly penalized. I feel that we need to achieve a balance there.

You are not alone in making that proposal to us. Jeff Hurst, the president of the Canadian Toy Association, wanted some amendments too. For example, before the department decides to publish confidential documents unilaterally, it should at least take the time to communicate with a company so that the company has time to get itself organized, to determine the damage, to try to come to an arrangement, or especially to order a voluntary recall, or perhaps to decide on a course of action with the department.

Ms. Reed, from Option consommateurs, also recognized that companies must not be penalized. She mentioned something extremely interesting in Europe, where they have a website on which manufacturers—she was talking about toys, but she explained that it could apply to many other areas—could post information about the composition of their toys without getting into confidential information. It is done without necessarily listing the companies they do business with, or whatever. But it would be good to have a list of the components that go into the manufacture of toys. Mr. Hurst, from the Canadian Toy Association, seemed receptive to that.

I am going to ask you another question at the same time. Could you tell me if you were consulted about Bill C-6? Also, how could we ask the department to make sure that its position is fair and equitable for all, and to examine the idea of a web site with Option consommateurs?

[David Skinner, President, Consumer Health Products Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the consumer health products industry on Bill C-6. My name is David Skinner, and I'm president of Consumer Health Products Canada, formerly known as NDMAC.

Consumer Health Products Canada is the national industry association representing manufacturers, marketers, and distributors of consumer health products. The association’s members, who range from small businesses to large corporations, account for the vast majority of sales in Canada’s $4.7-billion market for these products. Our members’ sales are equally proportioned between natural health products and other consumer health products, including sunscreens, allergy medicines, upset stomach remedies, and so forth. Our association has been the leading advocate for consumer health products for over 110 years.

Bill C-6, the Canada consumer product safety act, is, along with expected amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, a key legislative component of the government’s food and consumer safety action plan. Consumer health products are exempt from Bill C-6 by virtue of falling under the current Food and Drugs Act definition of “drug”. Nevertheless, we have identified two issues with respect to Bill C-6 that relate to consumer health products within the broader consumer safety action plan.

The first of these issues is the need to ensure that the intent to exempt those products regulated under the Food and Drugs Act is indeed carried out effectively. The second relates to the release of confidential business information to third parties, a provision found in both Bill C-6 and in the former Bill C-51 the Food and Drugs Act amendments that were introduced in the last Parliament and that died on the order paper when the 39th Parliament was dissolved.

The stated intention of the government is to exempt all therapeutic products, including consumer health products, from the provisions of this particular bill. This is to be accomplished by referencing the current definition of “drug” in the Food and Drugs Act. However, there has been much confusion around the need to specify a number of consumer health products to ensure they are adequately excluded through Schedule 1 to Bill C-6. The minister has indicated that an amendment to clarify the scope of the act will be proposed.

A concern has been expressed that if specific subcategories of products broadly defined in Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act are not set out specifically, they may be subject to the provisions of Bill C-6 in addition to the Food and Drugs Act. It stands to reason, however, that if one subcategory of natural health product is to be specifically identified as exempt, then all subcategories of products captured by Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act must be set out in Schedule 1 to Bill C-6. Classes of product that must be recognized in addition to NHPs would include personal care products—for example, antiperspirants—and other consumer health products such as sunscreens.

A further concern that we have identified is that while Schedule 1 identifies substances that would be exempt from the provisions of the bill, it is unclear whether this exemption would extend to other elements of the products regulated under the Food and Drugs Act, specifically their packaging and labelling. Discussions with departmental officials thus far have not been able to rule out the possibility that any subcategory of product could wind up being subject to both pieces of legislation in this way. In addition to the complexities and the unwarranted burden of being subject to two pieces of legislation, this possibly also creates the potential for situations in which the two regimes could come into conflict with each other.

Regulations and guidance documents under the Food and Drugs Act set out many specific requirements for the packaging of consumer health products, including child-resistant packaging, tamper-evident packaging, packaging material specifications, dose delivery mechanisms—for example, metered inhalers—and, of course, labelling.

We recognize that an attempt to list all possible classes of product could fail to cover all potentially relevant products. Since new classes of products arise from time to time under the Food and Drugs Act—for example, nutraceuticals—the list could be out of date rather quickly. To ensure that Bill C-6 clearly exempts products regulated under the Food and Drugs Act and to provide for flexibility so that every time a new class is added under the Food and Drugs Act there is no need for consequential amendments to Bill C-6, we recommend that schedule 1 be amended to delete articles 2 to 5 and replace them with a broad exemption for all products regulated within the scope of the Food and Drugs Act.

Our second key concern relates to the confidential business information provisions. The consumer health products industry understands the need, in rare emergency circumstances, for Health Canada to be able to release confidential business information to foreign regulatory authorities and other third parties to mitigate against potential serious and imminent public health risks. However, given the extent of vital proprietary information shared with Health Canada, industry believes that Health Canada must also notify the proprietor of the confidential information at the time such information is disclosed. Since consent to disclose is not required in the circumstances laid out in the act, timely notification would not in any way impact the government's ability to act or to act in a timely manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our industry's perspective on this important legislative proposal. My colleague and I look forward to answering questions you may have.

[Lisa Gue, Environmental Health Policy Analyst, David Suzuki Foundation]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear as part of this panel today.

I will focus my comments on the potential for Bill C-6 to address the problem of chronic exposure to toxic substances found in consumer products.

The David Suzuki Foundation examined the need to update Canada's Hazardous Products Act in our 2007 report, Prescription for a Healthy Canada. This report recommended amending the act to authorize mandatory recalls of consumer products containing toxic substances that pose chronic health hazards. We also recommended, as an interim step towards phase-out, product labelling to identify synthetic chemicals and heavy metals remaining in products, which are known to cause or suspected of causing cancer, abnormal development, endocrine disruption, or damage to the nervous, immune, or reproductive systems.

On this basis, we are pleased to see Bill C-6 come before Parliament with the stated aim of modernizing Canada's product safety regime. However, in order to truly deliver on this objective, we feel the bill needs to include specific and enforceable measures that will protect against chronic health hazards in consumer products.

The interpretation section of the bill defines a danger to human health and safety to include chronic adverse effects on human health in addition to acute or immediate harm. This is a very important indication of the intended scope of this bill. Unfortunately, Bill C-6 lacks specific provisions to proactively protect against chronic health hazards in consumer goods. As drafted, the main features of the bill are reactive: enhanced inspection powers, product recall authority, increased penalties for non-compliance. While there is a general prohibition on consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety, this very general provision on its own cannot be relied on to meaningfully address chronic hazards to human health in consumer products. We feel the legislation should include explicit provisions to prohibit priority categories of toxic substances in consumer products and require product labelling to provide consumers with usable information about chronic health effects to the extent that these substances remain in products.

We therefore encourage the committee to entertain two amendments to Bill C-6.

First, include a legislative mandate for the Minister of Health to phase out the use in consumer products of substances that are carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction, and assessed as toxic to human health under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. Such an amendment should direct the minister to establish a schedule of priority chronic health hazards, drawing from International Agency for Research on Cancer classifications, California's Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are toxic to reproduction, schedule 1 of CEPA, and other authoritative assessments. This provision should include a clear timeline—we recommend implementation within two years—and allow reasonable exemptions for essential uses where safer substitutes are not available.

I would like to address the issue of detection thresholds, which was raised in earlier sessions of your study of Bill C-6. This type of amendment should aim to prohibit the intentional addition of substances that are carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction, and the compliance threshold should be established accordingly. This acknowledges that some background levels of contamination may nevertheless be present, but also takes into account that there is no safe level of many of these substances.

The second amendment we suggest complements the first, and it would require labelling to identify substances that are carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction, or health toxic under CEPA, to the extent that these substances do remain in consumer products. Again, this provision should include a clear legislative timeline and should apply to all products within the scope of this bill.

Labelling will allow consumers to make their own choices about what hazards to accept or avoid in consumer products. It will also help policy makers gather better information about chronic health risks in consumer products. We believe, as well, it will promote market innovation to substitute inherently safer alternatives in response to consumer demand.

I think most of us would agree that internationally recognized carcinogens and substances that are toxic to reproduction should not be used in consumer products if safer substitutes are available.

This is what the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act should be about, and it would be quite straightforward to add to the bill explicit provisions to this end, as I have suggested.

Strengthening the bill in this way would also help to bring Canada's product safety regime up to date with initiatives in leading jurisdictions to protect against chronic health hazards. In California, for instance, legislation dating back to 1986 requires businesses to notify the public when chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive problems are included in consumer products, and you've already seen an example of that being implemented. Last year the European Union legislated implementation timelines for hazard labelling as well, and the EU is also phasing in notification requirements and restrictions on substances of very high concern beginning this year. These measures are designed not only to protect public health and safety but also to stimulate innovation in the development and production of safer alternatives in consumer products. This is the approach that Canada should adopt in Bill C-6 as well.

Before I conclude, I'd like to touch briefly upon two other issues.

First of all, the incident reporting and product recall provisions in the bill make no requirement for public disclosure. We recommend that the legislation be amended to require the minister to notify the public of reported incidents and recall orders, including information about health hazards.

Second, we also recommend that the authority to exempt exports in paragraph 36(1)(a) be removed from the legislation. It is not morally defensible for Canada to export health and safety hazards that we prohibit or restrict domestically.

Thank you again for this opportunity to present our views. I'll be happy to respond to your questions.

[Michael McBane, Coordinator, Canadian Health Coalition]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present our views in seven minutes and to at least get on the record for students of social history.

The Canadian Health Coalition is a non-partisan advocacy organization founded in 1979, dedicated to preserving and improving Canada's public health care system. The first goal of our coalition is to create conditions for good health. We think this should be the first objective of the Minister of Health, not to balance health with economic interests.

I'll make a couple of general observations, then some specific recommendations on Bill C-6.

I read the initial presentation of officials from Health Canada to your committee on May 5, and was impressed by members' questions from all sides. However, I must say I found the departmental responses misleading and deceptive.

Bill C-6 is consistent with the Government of Canada's policy of putting economic considerations ahead of protecting health and the environment. Everything else follows from this, including the policy of managing risk that causes preventable death instead of preventing the damage in the first place with a precautionary policy.

Bill C-6 reflects a general pattern of regulatory and legislative initiatives coming out of Health Canada. Rules are drafted by the industry itself, then these rules are not applied or enforced.

Canada's health and safety regulatory agencies have been captured by the very industries they are supposed to regulate. This regulatory capture is formalized in memoranda of understanding, where the industry actually funds the regulator and the regulator enters into a client relationship with the industry. Now, I'm assuming members of Parliament understand this, and this is what fee-for-service is all about, so their client becomes the industry instead of the public.

Regulatory scientists at Health Canada, should they have old-fashioned views of serving the public, will be fired—and have been fired. If Health Canada were putting health protection ahead of economic interests of the chemical producers, why would Dow Chemicals be pointing to Health Canada to use against Canadian municipalities in the NAFTA court challenge on cosmetic use of pesticides? If Health Canada were a world leader in protecting human health from toxic chemicals, as claimed by the associate deputy minister here on May 5, then why is Health Canada, at the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, actively working hand in hand with the food industry to block the reduction of chemical additives and contaminants in infant foods? This outrageous behaviour is well documented by the respected International Baby Food Action Network.

Health Canada has displayed negative leadership in international food and regulatory bodies by systematically blocking the introduction of the precautionary principle in international health regulations. Experience has taught me to approach any health protection legislation sponsored by Health Canada with a critical eye, based on what the department actually does, not on what it says it's doing. I encourage you to continue in this direction, as members of Parliament. Some of you have more experience than others with this departmental double-speak.

The following are specific recommendations on Bill C-6:

First of all, the legislation needs to be precaution-based, not risk-based, and the associate deputy minister acknowledged this was a risk-based piece of legislation. That's the completely wrong starting point. It means parents don't have the right to apply precaution, because the department has already taken the risk decision for you. That means that certain chemical substances should be banned outright.

The second recommendation is to end Health Canada's secrecy about unsafe products. Bill C-6, in the definition section, enshrines into law commercial confidentiality under “confidential business information” and is such that anything that affects a company's bottom line may be kept secret. This provision must be removed from the bill if any one of you believes in the right to know. This provision is completely inconsistent with that.

The third recommendation is that we support a number of our environmental organizations, some of which are here today, in calling for an outright ban on lead, mercury, phthalates, and PBDEs.

Fourth, there needs to be a legislated mandate toward labelling in the meantime, and I understand a number of witnesses will speak to that.

Finally, we have to ensure that whistle-blowers are protected. We strongly support whistle-blower protections for individuals within companies and within Health Canada who uncover wrongdoing. Whistle-blower protection will help bring to light serious safety issues hidden by unscrupulous corporate executives, and will help ensure that scientists and other professional staff at Health Canada may raise concerns about unsafe products without fear of retaliation by the Government of Canada.

Thank you.

[Kathleen Cooper, Senior Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Thank you.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association is a public interest organization and an Ontario legal aid clinic. Alongside legal representation, our legal aid work is equally about law reform.

In responding to Bill C-6,, we think in terms of protecting the most vulnerable within the broader public interest. For the same reasons, my work for many years has focused on the greater vulnerability of children to pollution and chemical exposures.

Yesterday your committee received a report called “First Steps in Lifelong Health” from the Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and Environment, a group of medical, public health, environmental, and child care organizations, for which I chair the coordinating committee. We also provided a cover letter to orient you to that report's recommendations on product safety issues.

There is a great deal of scientific evidence about the greater exposure and vulnerability of children to pollution and toxic substances. Of greatest concern are exposures during pregnancy. At particular risk are women and children living in poverty, which affects over one million children in Canada. Evidence is growing that boys appear to be faring worse than girls, and aboriginal children in Canada can be at the greatest risk. Thankfully, most children in Canada are healthy, but there are rising trends in certain diseases and disorders that are very troubling, and pollution and chemical exposures are implicated.

After hearing Dr. Schwarcz's testimony last Thursday, I chose to focus my remarks on our educational work and so have also tabled with you today four of our publications. In the discussion about labelling on Thursday, Dr. Schwarcz said repeatedly that information about the risks of chronic toxicity of chemicals in products is far too complex for people to understand. I beg to differ. Our partnership has a proven track record of translating this complex knowledge with accuracy and integrity. Our primer on child health and the environment was extensively peer-reviewed by Health Canada officials among many other experts. The quality of our knowledge translation is one of several reasons why the Canadian Paediatric Society recently decided to join our partnership.

The evidence tells us that, alongside air pollution and pesticides, consumer products are the most important area on which to focus our attention. It also tells us to focus on children's respiratory health, impacts on children's developing brains, two increasingly common birth defects in boys, and cancer in young adults.

We agree that there is enormous complexity and uncertainty about these health risks, but it is not accurate to say, as Health Canada presented to you on May 5, that the assessment of chemicals under the chemicals management plan takes into account cumulative exposures and risks. Only for two groups of similar pesticides, and to some extent for smog-forming air pollutants, have risk assessments by regulatory agencies begun to account for the combined impact of groups of chemicals. Nowhere in the world are these assessments yet able to determine the combined impact of the low levels of varied and dissimilar pollutants and chemicals to which we are all exposed every day.

It is not difficult for pregnant women or parents to understand that a possible problem exists from exposures to these chemical complex mixtures, even if the experts cannot tell them what the impact might he on their children's health. Their reaction is entirely reasonable. They want to play it safe. They want to know where they should focus their attention, and how they can avoid these exposures. They want to apply precaution, and they want their governments to do the same.

To provide one example, during four years of educational workshops held across the country, we have asked people to consider the contents of their vacuum cleaner bag and their dryer lint. In both cases, almost everyone in those workshops was surprised to learn that, alongside dust and soil particles, hair, fabric fibres, and skin flakes, you can also find, concentrated in your house dust, low levels of chemicals that are known to be toxic, like brominated flame retardants from your furniture and computers, perfluorochemicals used as stain repellants, maybe some pesticides, phthalates, bisphenol A, short chain chlorinated paraffins, and metals like lead and mercury, among others.

We tell parents about this chemical mix for three reasons. First, it illustrates reality: We are exposed to multiple chemicals from multiple sources. Second, those sources are often from consumer products. Third, it underscores the fact that house dust is one of the most important places where children can be exposed when they are crawling on the floor or putting toys or fingers in their mouths. With this knowledge, parents can focus attention where it matters, and they can take personal actions to avoid or reduce exposures. That is just one example. We also talk about food containers and packaging, the need to follow fish advisories, safe renovations, and other issues. I don't have time for more details except to say that parents immediately want to know how they can make better choices in buying products, and how can they avoid products with toxic substances.

All we can tell them is that very limited but important information is on some labels. You've talked about the consumer chemicals and containers regulation and related efforts within the proposed globally harmonized system. This labelling provides very important information, and Canada does an excellent job in this limited area.

It's almost entirely, although not exclusively, about acute hazards, and it's not enough. To avoid products containing chemicals associated with cancer or reproductive toxicity or developmental neurotoxicity, like most of those I mentioned in the vacuum bag, we tell parents that this information should be required on the product label, but it isn't. The result is that well-intentioned people are denied important information that would enable them to lower their children's exposures. Government policy should be helping, not thwarting, these kinds of efforts.

I brought with me today an example of a label from California. It's a string of garden lights for indoor or outdoor use, and it says:

CAUTION: PROP 65 WARNING: Handling the coated electrical wires of this product exposes you to lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after use.

In very few words, in very little space on this packaging, it gives me five useful pieces of information. It gives me the warning, the law that requires it, the chemical of concern, the reasons for the concern, and good precautionary advice, to wash my hands after use. Most plastic-coated electrical wires contain between 2% and 5% lead for fire resistance. This is one of the ways that lead gets into house dust. Old paint is another.

I received the same warning label with a computer that I bought online. The company had chosen to meet the proposition 65 requirements, presumably to cover off any customers in California.

To conclude, I'll say three things. First, with limited time I've left out a lot. At CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, we have sought product recall powers in the Hazardous Products Act for nearly ten years. This and many excellent reforms are in Bill C-6, but it only goes part of the way towards creating the modernized statute described by departmental officials to you. In particular, I hope we can discuss the general prohibition, which is welcome, but we have concerns about its ability to proactively address product safety issues related to concerns about chronic toxicity.

Secondly, in the interests of time, I have focused on labelling issues, but note that for Canadians living in poverty, they need more from product safety laws than an improved right to know. They are most affected by the legacy of our past mistakes. They are using or reusing older furniture and computers, which can expose them to higher levels of now-banned flame retardants. They often live in substandard housing, which can result in greater exposure to pesticides. If the housing predates the 1970s, there are potentially excessive levels of lead in old paint. They are not likely to own good vacuum cleaners. Poor-quality housing could be more difficult to keep clean and it can have moisture problems contributing to respiratory health problems.

Poverty establishes a key determinant of health, and there is good reason to expect that Canadians living in poverty are disproportionately exposed to multiple environmental hazards, including higher levels of chemicals of concern in consumer products.

Finally, I know my colleague Lisa Gue, with the David Suzuki Foundation, will table with you several recommendations concerning improvements to Bill C-6, so to avoid duplication of our presentations, we coordinated in advance. I'll just conclude by saying that the Canadian Environmental Law Association supports the recommendations that she will be making. They are substantially similar to the recommendations tabled with you in our partnership's First Steps in Lifelong Health report.

Thank you, and I hope I didn't speak too quickly for the translators.

[Geneviève Reed]

We believe that Bill C-6 currently under review goes a long way toward addressing the concerns of Canadian consumers. However, I cannot pass over in silence the disappearance of section 18, which we would like to see reinstated. We believe that communications intended for consumers must be a priority for the government.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks very much to everyone for being here this evening.

My first question's for the Canadian Toy Association. In your brief you've outlined three areas in which you would like to see refinement or improvement in the bill: the reporting obligations, the confidentiality issue, and the international safety standards. Then, in answer to one of the other questions, you talked about a massive data dump that's taking place in the United States and you want to avoid that here in Canada.

I wonder, for one thing, if you could elaborate a little bit on that. Then in response to that same question to which you were answering, someone else had responded that if it's a serious issue we want it reported right away. So how would you differentiate between the different levels of concern when it comes to an issue, and how does Bill C-6 address that? I gather from your presentation that you would like to see some changes in that, so perhaps you could talk a little bit about that and talk also about the international requirements.

[Lucienne Lemire]

In our view at the Consumers Council, there are five major gaps that this new Bill C-6 will address. Before, there was the inability to prevent unsafe products from entering the Canadian market. They simply couldn't keep up. I mean, there's so much coming through, and the way the law was before, they really couldn't address that.

Another gap was the inability to deal with an unregulated product or hazard. Before, they had to wait for something to happen. This bill will provide a much more proactive way of dealing with it, so that's another gap that we think is being dealt with.

Then there is the inability to detect and identify dangerous products at an early stage. Now suppliers will have to monitor their products and report adverse health and safety incidents, again without having to wait for something to happen in the industry. We think they will now be able to respond a lot quicker to appropriate dangerous products.

The other thing is the ability this new act is going to give them to deal with deceptive labelling or marks. Consumers count on that very often to make choice. We identify a mark or a brand that we know is quality. We're talking about toys. When my kids were little, I went for Fisher Price toys. To me, that was a toy that had been well thought out and was safe. But now, there's a lot of.... What do you call people who imitate a product?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First, I would like to thank the witnesses and to apologize to them for eating in their presence. I've always been told that's impolite.

Mr. Burns, you addressed a very interesting topic concerning Bill C-20. Your talk referred to an adequate number of inspectors, a question we've discussed very little since we've been studying Bill C-6.

If we pass a new bill under which more inspections will be conducted, it goes without saying that we'll have to increase the number of inspectors. However, we'll have to ensure that's not just a pious hope. An act without sufficient resources to administer it doesn't produce much of a result. I have a few fears on that subject.

In another file, the Conservative government has cut the number of inspectors, which has jeopardized certain inspections and resulted in a very unfortunate situation. I'm referring to the listeriosis affair. The government boasted of having increased the number of inspectors, whereas, in the field, clearly no inspections had been done. That resulted in some abuses. I find that paradoxical. They say they want to implement an act under which the number of inspections must be increased to protect the lives of Canadians. However, we must definitely ensure that, to do that, the government indeed intends to provide the necessary funding and resources.

I would like you to comment on what I've just said and to provide us with some details on what you consider an adequate number of inspectors. We'll have to manage the increased obligations resulting from the fact that we want to guarantee food safety. I would like you to tell us how many inspectors will be necessary, in your opinion, and how much that might cost. Perhaps you could give us a figure to facilitate the government's thinking. I would also like to know where you think those inspectors should be deployed.

[Geneviève Reed]

We are concerned, however, by the non-inclusion or rather, the disappearance, of section 18 of the previous Bill C-52. This section stipulated:

18. The minister may disclose information to the public on a danger to health or human security that any consumer product poses.

We would like this section to be reinstated. To allay the fears of certain stakeholders that the scope of this section could have an adverse impact on the ability to protect commercial information, we recommend that creating a new clause entitled “Communicating with the public” and inserting it in the texts of section 18 of the former Bill C-52.

Canada's main trading partners, the U.S.A. and the European Union have both opted for proactive disclosure on recalls related to health and safety of consumer products. We recommend that a similar system of reporting recalls and the corrective measures taken by government be implemented in Canada. Such a move would go far to bolster the confidence of Canadian consumers. In order to make such a system more user friendly and easily accessible to Canadians, it should be constructed as a single Internet portal where one could, with minimum effort, find information on recalls of all types of products sold in Canada, whether it be consumer products, food, medicines, cosmetics or cars. See, for example, the U.S. government site, www.recalls.gov, for a model.

Inasmuch as Bill C-6 allows the minister, through regulation, to adopt the measures necessary to implement this law, we believe that at least the two above-mentioned measures should be acted upon without delay.

You may recollect that there was a flood of recalls of Fisher-Price toys by Mattel in the summer of 2007. Option consommateurs conducted a flash survey of the retailers and the manufacturer to find out how these recalled products could be returned. We discovered then that there was total confusion all round and that all consumers were not treated alike.

We trust that, with the passage of Bill C-6 on consumer product safety, the minister will be able to quickly focus on setting up a recall system that would reflect the interests of consumers, particularly those most vulnerable. Any recalls policy should clarify the steps to be taken to compensate and properly inform consumers of the product that was subject to recall. It should also be accompanied by a guide for manufacturers and distributors so that they could undertake the necessary corrective measures, including recalls, to ensure the safety of products. This guide should be developed in close collaboration with consumer associations, as in Europe.

Toys represent the largest proportion of recalled products in both Europe and the United States. In fact, very strict rules governing toy safety have been adopted across the world in recent years. These include: legislation on chemicals potentially harmful or carcinogenic, lowering of the permitted thresholds for certain hazardous substances, such as lead or mercury, and strengthening the rules regarding the use of tiny parts in toy manufacture.

In 2004, we conducted a study on noise levels in toys for children between zero and three years of age, and we recommended that a stricter standard than the existing one be adopted. Canada can benefit from the experience of other states when creating regulations which are both tailored to the realities of the market but at the same time are effective in protecting consumers.

We hope that the minister will use the power of regulation granted to her wisely and make Canada a safer place for children and for consumers.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention and we will be happy to take your questions.

[Anu Bose, Head, Ottawa Office, Option consommateurs]

Members of the committee, the consumers of Canada need Bill C-6, but it is only a first step.

Every day Canadians buy a variety of consumer products that are imported into Canada from all over the world. These include toys, clothing, tools, and electronics. Their number is legion. Unfortunately, in recent years we've seen several product recalls, and this has had a negative impact on consumer confidence. We are convinced that the regulatory regime for consumer products available in Canada should be both strengthened and modernized. Therefore we believe that Bill C-6 for the most part responds to the concerns of Canadian consumers.

We particularly welcome the inclusion of the ban across the board that will affect each and every player in the production chain. Furthermore, it will enable the Minister of Health to take prompt action to remove dangerous products from the shelves of stores and supermarkets. This bill will also give more power to inspectors, including the power to order a recall. We hope that these inspectors will be given the necessary resources and the department will be sufficiently staffed to exercise these enhanced powers.

The obligation of each and every party that manufactures, imports, or sells consumer products to report incidents is also particularly important. We hope that this reporting requirement will be accompanied by strengthened cooperation at the international level between the office of the consumer product safety division of Health Canada and its European, Asian, and American counterparts. We also hope that maximum effort will be made to pool information on all recalls from the respective countries. Finally, we trust that this measure will lead to the creation of a national registry of recalls that will enable Canadian consumers to directly participate in the recall process.

The product safety program of Health Canada within the healthy environments and consumer safety branch must therefore be given the necessary resources to further increase awareness among Canadian consumers. Consumers should be able to promptly report any information they have related to a given product.

[Geneviève Reed, Head, Research and Representation Department, Option consommateurs]

Madam the committee Chair, vice-chairs, committee members, the clerk of the committee and analysts, let me begin by thanking you for giving Option consommateurs the opportunity to appear before you on Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

Option consommateurs has been in existence since 1983. We are a non-profit association whose mission is to promote and protect consumers' interests and ensure that they are respected. Our head office is located in Montreal, and we also have an office in Ottawa. Ms. Bose is responsible for it.

We intervene on matters of public policy at both the federal and Government of Quebec levels. We have a long and abiding interest in the safety of consumer products, first because we publish an annual guide to toys, in collaboration with the magazine Protégez-Vous; second, because we sit on the Committee for Consumer and Public Interest of the Standards Council of Canada; and thirdly, we conduct research on all aspects of toys, including sound levels.

[Gail Campbell, Director, Consumers Council of Canada]

Thank you.

We believe that the proposals in Bill C-6 strengthen the government's ability to protect Canadian consumers. The specific changes that the council sees protecting consumers include the prohibition of a manufacturer or importer from manufacturing, importing, distributing, promoting, or marketing a product that is, or is likely to be, a danger to the health or safety of the public.

The change in Bill C-6 also gives the power to compel consumer product recalls, or other corrective measures, and to carry out measures if the industry doesn't cooperate. The ability to order a supplier to remove, recall, or correct a defective product enhances consumer protection by removing the risk posed to consumers.

The legislation also allows an increase in fines and penalties, including administrative monetary penalties. These will deter the existence of dangerous products in the marketplace and enhance consumer confidence in the marketplace.

Finally, the changes will include the requirement of manufacturers and other suppliers to take necessary measures to ensure safety of consumer products. It will ensure the mandatory reporting of defects, adverse defects, and mandatory record-keeping for traceability of products throughout the supply chain. This will help identify dangerous products at an early stage. It further strengthens the accountability of manufacturers for protecting Canadian consumers.

In conclusion, in order for Health Canada to effectively govern the safety of consumer products, it requires the authorities and the tools to detect, assess, and address product hazards readily. Business requires a level playing field and good-quality product safety information to identify hazards, to address product risks, and to comply with regulations.

Consumers also require good-quality product safety information in order to take responsibility for preventing product-related injuries and for maintaining products correctly. The council believes that the provisions proposed for Bill C-6, the Canada consumer product safety act, support the needs of all stakeholders and establish key factors necessary for an effective product safety program.

Thank you so much for allowing us to present, and we'll be happy to answer questions.

[Lucienne Lemire, Chair, Health and Food Safety Committee, Consumers Council of Canada]

Thank you for inviting the Consumers Council of Canada to present this brief. I would like to introduce my colleague Gail Campbell, who is director and member of the health committee. My name is Lucienne Lemire, and I am chair of the health committee.

The brief was written in English. Since I'm not gifted enough to provide a simultaneous translation of it, I'm going to present it to you in English.

This is the submission of the Consumers Council of Canada to the Standing Committee on Health with regard to Bill C-6, an act respecting the safety of consumer products.

The Consumers Council of Canada is an independent not-for-profit organization, federally incorporated in 1994 to bring a consumer voice to important local, regional, and national issues. The council works collaboratively with consumers, business, and government to solve marketplace problems. We aim to inform consumers, business, and government alike about their rights and obligations.

Our cooperative, practical engagement contrasts with the more traditional adversarial approaches to advocacy. The council believes it is good business to address consumer issues effectively.

The Consumers Council of Canada believes the provisions proposed in Bill C-6 both support the needs of all stakeholders and establish the key factors necessary for an effective product safety program. The council has identified five major gaps in part of the Hazardous Products Act, the existing product safety legislation, and how Bill C-6 will address these gaps.

The five gaps are as follows: first, the inability to prevent unsafe products from entering the Canadian market; second, the inability to deal with unregulated products or hazards; third, the inability to detect and identify dangerous products at an early stage; fourth, the inability to respond quickly and appropriately to dangerous products; and fifth, the inability to deal with deceptive labels or marks.

I would now like my colleague to explain how we see that the new bill, Bill C-6, addresses these gaps.

[Jeff Hurst, Chair of the Board, Canadian Toy Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

As chairman of the Canadian Toy Association, I appreciate this opportunity to help advance our shared goal of improving toy safety by addressing Bill C-6, an act respecting the safety of consumer products. With me, also from the Canadian Toy Association, is Arthur Kazianis, who will assist in answering members' questions this evening.

The Canadian Toy Association's 110 members are manufacturers, importers, and distributors of toys, generating about $1.8 billion of annual retail sales in Canada. Although the Canadian industry is large, our core members are actually smaller Canadian businesses.

CTA's members are vitally concerned about toy safety. Since recalls by some large multinational toy companies two years ago, our members have worked hard to further enhance toy safety. Toy manufacturers have increased their investment in safety throughout the product development process, including the evaluation of product designs and testing prototypes throughout the manufacturing process. This includes testing raw materials, preproduction samples, in-process goods, and finished products. Toy manufacturers also audit the compliance of their vendors and suppliers, ensuring that they are following safety procedures.

There is consensus among experts that this focus on safety throughout the product development process is the best way to ensure safety. These measures have greatly improved our members' ability to ensure toy safety in a global economy. Apart from these private initiatives, CTA recognizes that the government can further advance our mutual goal of enhanced toy safety. CTA accordingly supports the government's initiative to update Canada's consumer product safety law, and we welcome this opportunity to work with the government and Health Canada.

I would like to emphasize that this legislation will be guiding the government and stakeholders for many years to come, and we therefore urge the committee to take its time while reviewing this bill to avoid any unintended consequences. There are many significant issues within this bill that will impact Canadian businesses.

There are three areas in which CTA thinks Bill C-6 could be improved: the reporting of incidents; preservation of confidential business information; increased alignment of international safety standards and procedures.

As to incident reporting obligations, we recognize that genuine safety issues must be reported to the government in a timely manner. At the same time, our members receive and carefully analyze thousands of reports from consumers each year, the vast majority of which do not raise genuine safety issues. It is important to ensure that the government is promptly notified of safety issues without causing the toy industry to flood the government with every report from consumers around the world.

We have discussed this issue with Health Canada, which recognizes this need for balance. However, CTA believes that Bill C-6 itself should at least provide clear guidance to better inform Health Canada's implementation.

As to preserving confidential business information, Health Canada unquestionably must have the power to disclose information as necessary to protect consumers from danger. At the same time, publication of unsubstantiated consumer reports that have not been investigated properly may give rise to false alarms. This could corrode the credibility of Health Canada and create unnecessary anxiety, or even panic, among consumers. It could also seriously damage good toy companies that have spent years building their reputation.

We urge that Bill C-6 be amended to make clearer the scope of commercial information the minister could disclose, and to require the government to notify a company if and when its confidential information is going to be released.

As to the alignment of international safety standards, the toy industry operates in a global economy. Aligning international safety standards and procedures, which often address the same issues, would benefit regulators, industry, and Canadians. It would eliminate the need to duplicate toy testing where the tests are only slightly different. It would facilitate trade and reduce costs to consumers, and it would enable closer cooperation and enforcement by Health Canada and its counterparts around the world.

Indeed, increased alignment of international standards is an explicit goal of Health Canada. For example, one of the objectives in the 2005 memorandum of understanding between the United States and Health Canada regarding consumer product safety is to make our standard-related measures as compatible as feasible.

While there are many different voluntary and mandatory safety standards for toys, the standards established by the respected International Organization for Standardization, commonly known as ISO, have been adopted in more countries around the world than any other. Even those countries that have set their own standards have turned to variations on the ISO standards. The European Union has largely adopted a variation of those standards, and the United States has recently implemented standards that closely track to the ISO standards as well.

CTA and its members urge Canada to take advantage of the experience reflected in standards already adopted by other countries. Canada, of course, must be free to adopt its own different standards to the extent necessary to protect its youngest citizens, but in light of the advantages of aligning international standards, departures from accepted existing standards should be the exception rather than the rule.

Madam Chair, in summary, the CTA applauds these efforts and supports the principles in Bill C-6. Again, we urge the committee to take its time while reviewing this bill to avoid any unintended consequences.

As we go forward, we want to work with the government to refine and improve the bill in the three areas I mentioned.

First, we request the clarification of reporting objectives. We want to ensure that Health Canada obtains the information it needs to protect consumers but does not, at the same time, create a crippling volume of consumer reports that do not reflect a safety issue.

Second, we request that Bill C-6 ensures that confidential business information is released publicly only to the extent necessary to address a genuine safety risk, and that advance notice be provided to the affected businesses.

Third, we believe Canadian consumers and companies, as well as the government, would benefit greatly from increased alignment with international safety standards and procedures. At the same time, we must preserve our ability to depart from international standards where it is necessary to do so.

On behalf of the CTA members, I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and the other members of the committee for the opportunity to speak here today on a matter that is vitally important to all of us, particularly the CTA and its members.

Arthur and I would be pleased to respond to members' questions at the end.

Thank you.

[Joel Taller, Legal Counsel, Canadian Health Food Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Joel Taller. I'm legal counsel to the Canadian Health Food Association, the CHFA.

On behalf of the association, I'd like to thank this committee for the important work you do and the opportunity to appear before you to address an important piece of legislation, Bill C-6.

The CHFA is Canada's largest national trade association dedicated to the natural and organic products industry. Our members represent the entire supply chain, including growers, manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors, and importers involved in a variety of industry subsectors, such as vitamin and mineral supplements, herbal products, homeopathics, sports nutrition products, natural and organic fibres, and health and beauty aids. The products support Canadians seeking to enhance and maintain health and well-being and together represent an industry worth more than $3.5 billion annually.

Our interest in Bill C-6 stems in part from our disappointment that natural health products were not specifically articulated as being exempt from Bill C-6 and our concern with respect to some of the new powers proposed in Bill C-6, which might find their way into future amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. We have written the minister expressing our concern that natural health products were not specifically mentioned as exempt from Bill C-6 and we have received a positive response from the minister indicating that amendments will be proposed that address our concern. We hope this committee will support any proposed amendment that will specifically articulate in the proposed legislation that natural health products will be exempt.

We also believe in the importance of having a variety of powers available to both the Minister of Health and inspectors, should it be necessary. As a $3.5-billion industry in Canada, the majority of our industry is small and medium-sized enterprises that are working hard to comply with the current regulations. As a regulated industry built on innovation, the economic impact of heavy enforcement without the necessary checks and balances is not acceptable. While we are pleased to see that the government recognizes the need for enhanced powers, nonetheless it will be important for those granted these additional powers to understand their limits. It remains our concern that there should be reasonable oversight with respect to the exercise of those powers.

Over the years, our members and the industry as a whole have argued for an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework that recognizes the unique and low-risk nature of natural health products. The 1998 Standing Committee on Health's 53 recommendations, contained in the report entitled “Natural Health Products: A New Vision”, gave stakeholders hope that their voice had been heard by the federal government.

The first recommendation was for the creation of a definition for “natural health products” distinct from food and drugs, and for the Food and Drugs Act to be amended accordingly. Stakeholders were told by Health Canada in 1998 that the most expedient way to implement the decisions of the standing committee was not to wait for an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, but rather, in the interim, accept the implementation of the natural health product regulations, with NHPs defined therein as a “subset” of drugs.

This was only to be a short-term fix until such time as the Food and Drugs Act as it was amended was part of a more comprehensive review. Not only is this perception of NHPs being a subset of drugs troubling, but many within the industry believe this has resulted in a shift in the interpretation by the regulator of a regulatory framework bringing those requirements more in line with drugs.

Our members have expressed concern that their experiences with the natural health products directorate no longer appear to follow the original intent of the standing committee. In many cases the expectations that have been applied to NHPs are the same as or more stringent than those applied to drugs, including drugs that were previously approved by Health Canada. This is not acceptable.

Make no mistake, the CHFA is committed to the highest level of consumer safety. That said, the principle of smart regulation is not reflected in the experience of our members. Despite the generally low-risk nature of NHPs, in many cases our industry is experiencing the very same regulatory rigours as drugs. In today's economy, the Canadian public is not well served by a regulatory regime that hinders innovation with no discernible increase in consumer protection. These are safe and well-designed products, for which the regulatory framework should promote, not impede, innovation, bringing to Canadians new, safe, and high-quality products, allowing them to take charge of their health while allowing the industry to create jobs across the country.

The natural health products and organic industry believes in providing safe, effective, and high-quality products to Canadians working to enhance and maintain health and well-being. We therefore recognize the need to ensure that all products are safe. Our industry believes contaminated products should be removed from the marketplace and not be made available for sale. This is critical to the continued growth of our industry in Canada.

In closing, CHFA hopes that this committee will support amendments that will specifically reflect that natural health products are exempt from Bill C-6 and ensure that the suite of powers provided for in Bill C-6 are subject to reasonable checks and balances that will ensure the health of Canadians while permitting those who are subject to those powers an opportunity to respond in an appropriate manner and within a reasonable timeframe.

Thank you very much for your time this evening.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You will be? Excellent. Thank you very much; that's great.

Are you pleased to know that Bill C-6 can be used to regulate snow and ski helmets and to ensure that helmets are labelled properly so that consumers know they are purchasing safe products?

[Shannon Coombs]

As a mom, I think Bill C-6 is going to do a good job; I do.

[Kim Ayotte]

I can't personally speak on behalf of what enforcement capabilities are out there right now, so I wouldn't want to make a statement on behalf of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs to indicate there isn't enough. I can only speak on behalf of what we see in the homes and the damage we see from these incidents. We see the burned babies, the electrocutions, and the damage. We are in favour of any legislation that will help prevent that. That's why we strongly support Bill C-6.

On the counterfeit issue, we see similar activities. Many times when we identify something that has been CSA-approved--for example, a light fixture or any type of appliance--when we do an investigation we try to identify what within the unit caused the fire. Many times we spend a lot of resources investigating these types of incidents because they've had tragic consequences. As a result we have uncovered several incidents where fraudulent CSA-approval markings have been on the products.

Unfortunately for the consumer, our method of sharing that information isn't very quick. We don't have a quick enforcement action to go out and ask for a mandatory recall of these types of products. We tend to use the capabilities of CSA and other types of testing, like ULC, to enforce it. But many times we're talking about months, if not years, before those dangerous products are either off the shelf or have been identified at their source and eliminated.

Again, any type of legislation such as Bill C-6 that could help provide a stronger, more immediate reaction instead of the delay we currently experience would be beneficial. We would definitely embrace it to try to protect our young children.

[Kim Ayotte]

On the flammability of clothing, there are some regulations that do regulate the flammability of clothing. However, with a lot of the clothing coming in from manufacturers from overseas, it's not always guaranteed.

I'm not familiar with, and I'm not here today to speak on behalf of, the enforcement capabilities of that. However, we do believe that Bill C-6 would provide greater enforcement capabilities for those types of manufacturing issues.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I'd like to ask a question to the deputy fire chief, if I could. He's been getting off pretty easily here.

I come from a household that has a fire chief and a fire prevention officer in it, so I've heard a lot of things about fire prevention and safety in the home. I've heard about the different aspects, and the horror stories they can come back and tell you about--the frayed wires underneath the rugs, the candles that have caused the house fires, and all those things. We were probably the first home in town to have flameless candles; the rest were all banned.

I know it's a very serious issue for anybody who is in the firefighting field because of the outcomes you see in terms of the safety hazards. I know that you are always concerned about the flammability of kids clothing, for example, and the standards. You also talked about the counterfeiting of different products.

Can you just talk a little bit more about the flammability issues in terms of kids clothing, the protections now, and how Bill C-6 may protect further? Then I'd like to hear a little bit more about the counterfeiting issue and how that would be improved with Bill C-6.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Right now, Bill C-6 does have provisions for misleading claims regarding certification and product safety. Is that going to help?

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

It's not necessary for you to make that comment with regard to Bill C-6, but with regard to the standard that is—

[Shannon Coombs]

The provision that was included in Bill C-51 was that “No person shall--knowing information to be false or being reckless as to its truth--communicate or cause to be communicated that information with the intent to cause a reasonable apprehension in others” that a consumer product presents a danger to human health or safety.

Clearly, the department feels that's necessary to have with respect to food, therapeutic products, or cosmetics. We felt that the same could be extended to Bill C-6 with the covering of consumer products.

[Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to provide an overview of CCSPA's suggestions to improve Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. I have to say that it's a bit of a tongue twister for me, as our acronym is CCSPA.

My name is Shannon Coombs and I am the president of the CCSPA. I have proudly represented this industry for 10 years. Our accomplishments as a proactive and responsible industry will be clearly visible as I make my presentation.

We are a national trade association that represents 45 member companies across Canada. Collectively, we are a $20-billion industry employing 12,000 people in over 100 facilities. Our companies manufacture, process, package, and distribute consumer, industrial, and institutional specialty products such as soaps, detergents, domestic pest control products, aerosols, hard-surface disinfectants, deodorizers, and automotive chemicals. I have provided the clerk with copies of our one-pager, which has a picture of our products, and I'm sure many of you use them every day.

Why are we here? The health and safety of Canadians is a priority for all CCSPA members and we support this legislation. Our member companies are leaders in the responsible use of chemicals for consumer and institutional products in this country. We are committed to the appropriate and safe use of our products.

Over the past year, we have announced various exciting initiatives, such as the “William, Won't You Wash Your Hands?” initiative, which all of you would have received a copy of a few weeks ago and which we asked you to donate to your local day care or child care facility. That was a partnership with the Public Health Agency of Canada as well as the Canadian Institute of Child Health.

We also announced the voluntary lowering of phosphorus in automatic dishwasher detergent. As well, we have a “Concentrate on the Future” initiative, which is a communication initiative for consumers. I'm sure many of you have seen the 2X or 3X that is now on your laundry or bleach products.

As well, last April, we announced a voluntary ingredient communication initiative that is going to allow companies the ability to disclose all of their ingredients on product labels or members' websites. The great feature of the program is the ability to do this on the website, as it allows companies to explain the benefits and the chemistry behind the products. The program is effective January 1, 2010, and it will cover air care products, automotive and cleaning products, and polishes and floor maintenance products.

Are our member companies' ingredients in products regulated? Yes, they are. Canadians can be confident that the products are safe and that the products they purchase have had various levels of government review and oversight. That oversight depends on the type of product.

In Canada, all substances and products such as laundry powder and liquids, fabric softeners, and dishwashing liquids have had either a new substance notification review or an existing substance review under CEPA and under the chemicals management plan. If any of those consumer products make a claim such as “kills 99.9% of germs”, for example, they're also regulated under the Food and Drugs Act.

As well, the labels on our products are regulated by the consumer chemicals and containers regulations, based under the Hazardous Products Act, which now will fall under Bill C-6. The foundation of that regulation is science. It's a hazard classification, but it provides risk communication to consumers. It has provided precautionary labelling for consumers for the last 39 years. It was just modernized, in 2001, and continues to be an excellent regulatory tool for communicating to Canadians. Elements of CCCR-2001 extend to other products such as food and domestic pest control products.

Our disinfectants are regulated by Health Canada. They have a pre-market assessment and, as with any kind of new substance, review under CEPA as well.

Given the diversity of products, we are subject to various laws and regulations such as CEPA, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Food and Drugs Act. Therefore, we believe that our experience is most beneficial to the committee, as we have been actively involved in the modernization of all these pieces of legislation.

We are seeking two additional clauses for Bill C-6, which include provisions for hoaxes and a provision for a ministerial advisory council. Both amendments would enhance the legislation.

Why? In our experience, a minister's advisory council, such as the one that exists currently under the Pest Control Products Act, and which I'm a member of, is a valuable tool for exchanging information and providing constructive feedback to the minister and the department to help shape and form current and future policies and regulations.

Given the three-pronged approach outlined by the officials--active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response--an advisory council could be only another effective tool to the minister and the department for implementing Bill C-6. We believe it would enhance outcomes and actions of Health Canada.

Why a provision for hoaxes? We believe that people should be accountable for information or misinformation they provide about consumer products and their ingredients. The provision for hoaxes is borrowed from the legislation that was tabled last April in Bill C-51, the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.

Clearly the government believes there is a problem and they need the authority to take action on Food and Drugs Act products, as it was included in this proposed legislation. Therefore, in the spirit of consistency with other Health Canada legislation, Bill C-6 would be strengthened by providing the government with the authority to deal with people who deliberately seek to mislead consumers on these products as well. The goal should be that consumers have the information they need to make balanced and well-informed choices. Fear should not be allowed to be a marketing tool.

We respectfully request that the committee consider these two additions to the proposed law. We have provided some other minor amendments, such as a consistent precautionary statement in the preamble that would be consistent with CEPA and the Pest Control Products Act, plus some other housekeeping items.

I would like to touch on the issue of labelling, as it was raised here at committee during testimony today. I don't believe there has been enough information, or enough factual information, provided to the honourable members from the department on current regulatory authorities for labelling in this country; nor do I believe the information provided in previous testimony to be complete.

Is additional precautionary labelling warranted, and does it need to be included in this bill? As I stated in my opening remarks, labels on consumer products that contain substances are regulated by CCCR. The regulations are science-based, and they include risk communication. Canadians have been using this system for 39 years. Children are even taught to identify the symbols as early as junior kindergarten. What would be achieved by adding another labelling provision to this act?

Canadians are protected by CCCR. Including an amendment in this legislation for labelling of carcinogens; offering up a California Proposition 65 system; using a straight list-based system, such as using substances listed on schedule 1 of CEPA or IARC; even using the building blocks of GHS--we do not believe these meet the needs of Canadians.

CCSPA supports the consumer's right to know, the right to meaningful information, and the right to accurate information. Do any of those systems provide balanced information to the consumer? How would the government even enforce such a law?

In our opinion, by having parliamentarians amend Bill C-6 to include additional labelling, it would effectively be creating a loophole that would have two negative outcomes--one, the sale of unsafe products; and two, misleading claims on safe products.

Why would there be unsafe products? If a product bears a warning statement or a symbol, then consumers have been duly warned; therefore, where is the accountability? Canadians have public policy and legislative frameworks based on risk. This is not the American system of buyer beware. If a product is unsafe, the Canadian government should take it off the market--period. Why would we put forward an act that allows the government to take action via the general prohibition on unsafe products but allows unsafe products on the market to be sold as long as they're labelled?

Why would there be misleading claims? A system that penalizes ethical companies—my member companies—whose businesses are founded on consumer product confidence, and whose products are safe and do not cause cancer.... They will be forced to be put on their products a misleading claim, because a symbol of “C” on sunscreen or hand sanitizers is not accurate, as the end product is safe, even though they contain IARC-listed substances.

Right now Health Canada does not allow companies to make a claim unless it's true--for example, the level of calcium or vitamin C in products. Therefore, why would government force companies to put a “C” on a label for a product that is not a carcinogen?

If a new labelling amendment does go forward, what will we end up with? We'll end up with chaos in the marketplace and consumer confusion, asking moms to make decisions and do their own risk assessments at the retail level; an ineffective law that can't be enforced; flourishing allegations and lawsuits that waste taxpayers' dollars, exactly as has happened in California; companies forced to overlabel; and barriers to trade. I think we would agree that this is not where we want to be.

I offer these comments to you today as a way of continuing and informing this important debate. If the honourable members are contemplating a substantial change to our risk-based society, then the facts all need to be on the table.

In our opinion, Bill C-6 is a modern piece of legislation that allows this government to take an aggressive and responsive approach to protecting Canadians. It has mandatory recall provisions, incident reporting, a general prohibition to take action on products, and fines. The labelling discussion should not detract us from our collective goal, which is to pass this piece of legislation.

I would be most pleased to answer any questions that the committee has.

[Ondina Love, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists]

Thanks very much for the invitation to be here. Joining me today is Dr. Chantal Kealey. She is the director of audiology with CASLPA.

First, I'd like to explain a little bit about what CASLPA is, our 5,400 members across the country, and what they do. CASLPA is the only national body that supports and represents the professional needs of speech language pathologists, audiologists, and supportive personnel. In doing so, we support our members in maximizing the communication and hearing potential of the people of Canada. Prevention is a key role in this regard.

I think it's worth highlighting the role of audiologists. Audiologists are hearing health professionals who identify, diagnose, and manage individuals with peripheral or central hearing loss, tinnitus, and balance disorders. Audiologists, speech language pathologists, and supportive personnel play an active role in promoting hearing health and in encouraging government policy to ensure that Canadians don't needlessly suffer from permanent hearing damage.

As part of this, CASLPA audiologists have paid particular attention to the hearing health of children, especially as it relates to the safety of children's toys. CASLPA firmly believes that with Bill C-6 the government is moving in the right direction to ensure that the products we have in our homes are safe. It does so by placing an onus on manufacturers to ensure that their products are safe and by giving government the power and capacity to make sure this happens.

Putting the onus on industry to ensure product safety is a welcome change from the status quo and helps to encourage a culture of safety for those who make and sell goods to people in Canada. Giving the minister power to order safety tests on products and, when needed, mandatory recalls ensures that the government is able to respond quickly when problems do arise. Doubling the number of inspectors--the eyes and ears of consumer safety legislation--increases the government's ability to anticipate and respond to consumer product issues.

In short, CASLPA firmly believes that Bill C-6 is a step in the right direction for consumer product safety, but there are other steps to take specifically as this relates to children's toys. Absent from Bill C-6 is a commitment to reduce the acceptable decibel level for toys from the current 100 decibels to a level more in line with international standards, such as the World Health Organization standard of 75 decibels.

Choking hazards and lead in toys may be more apparent dangers to the public. The danger of noisy toys is often trivialized or dismissed as just annoying to parents, but the danger these toys pose is very real and can cause permanent hearing damage.

On this issue, there are two important considerations: how the amount of permissible noise is measured and how much noise is actually safe for children's small ear canals. Currently, schedule I of the Hazardous Products Act limits the amount of noise children's toys can make to 100 decibels, measured at arm's length. This is markedly higher than the 75 decibels suggested by the WHO. Also, the International Organization for Standardization has recommended that close-to-the-ear toys not exceed 65 decibels.

As a contrast, in a workplace, exposure to 100 decibels would only be considered safe for 15 minutes, and that's for adults. Children, because of their smaller ear canals, are more susceptible to the effects of noise.

What's more, how government currently measures a toy's sound often underestimates its actual effect. As mentioned, currently sound is measured at arm's length. It is no secret that during the routine course of play children will hold toys substantially closer than that, increasing the toy's relative noise and its risk of permanently damaging hearing. Since government cannot mandate how children play with toys, current testing protocols must be revised to reflect actual play situations.

Through Bill C-6, the government has shown a firm commitment to improving Canada's consumer product safety, requiring manufacturers and suppliers to ensure their products' safety while giving the government the tools needed to ensure accountability. This work is to be commended.

It is important that government extend the same effort to help protect the auditory health of children in Canada by further limiting the decibel level of noisy toys to the WHO level of 75 decibels, as echoed in another important piece of legislation, Bill C-357. It should also improve the method by which this level is measured. Under current standards, the amount of allowable noise of a child's toy would be considered a workplace health hazard, even at moderate exposure.

Given the irreversible nature of hearing damage from noise exposure, it is important that government seize the opportunity of this legislation to include a safer noise standard for children's toys. CASLPA members have seen at first hand the hearing, speech, and language implications that can arise from hearing loss due to unacceptable noise conditions.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Kim Ayotte, Deputy Chief, Ottawa Region, Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Kim Ayotte, and I am a chief officer with Ottawa Fire Services. I am here today, however, representing the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the government relations committee.

The CAFC counts as its members over 1,000 fire chiefs located in every province and territory. Overwhelmingly, like me, its members are municipal public servants with the mandate of protecting the lives and property of citizens of the various communities. Within our membership, we also have fire chiefs from industry; airports; other institutions, such as universities and hospitals; armed forces; and many of the country's first nations. No other association can claim this breadth of support, making CAFC truly the voice of fire services in Canada.

The throne speech of October 2007 contained the following statement that was most welcome to Canadian fire services:

Our Government shares the concern of parents about the safety of consumer products and food. Canadians should expect the same standards of quality from imported goods as they do from products made at home. The Government will introduce measures on food and product safety to ensure that families have confidence in the quality and safety of what they buy.

The CAFC stated its support for the throne speech announcement. It supported Bill C-52 and it supports Bill C-6. The primary reason for our strong endorsement of Bill C-6 is stated in our brief, which I'd like to state for the record today.

A significant percentage of responses for every fire department has important consumer product safety implications. Stovetop fires, electrical fires, electrocutions, accidental poisonings, strangulations, and the careless use of candles as well as matches and lighters are a few examples in this regard.

Special mention, however, should be made for the increasing use of chemical compositions in residential furnishings and clothing. Our submission points out that counterfeiting is a serious consumer product safety problem. The use of counterfeit certification marks enables unsafe and deficient products to gain widespread access to the market, and are a direct risk to consumers.

In addition, we are deeply concerned about the vast quantities of cigarettes being imported into this country that do not meet the low ignition propensity standards that CAFC, Health Canada, and the standing committee worked diligently and cooperatively to enact. These illegal cigarettes are far more likely to remain ignited when unattended, and are therefore products that not only threaten the consumers of such cigarettes; they also jeopardize innocent third parties.

Clauses 6 through 9 of Bill C-6 require that no person shall manufacture, import, advertise, or sell a consumer product that is a danger to human health and safety. The CAFC believes the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act will be useful in combatting counterfeit products and illegal products that are currently available to Canadians.

Some submissions that have been presented to the standing committee call for amendments to Bill C-6. To the degree that these amendments are being offered with a view to improving these provisions, they are welcomed by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. However, to the degree that they will weaken the bill, and are intended to unnecessarily delay its implementation, we trust that the standing committee will not support them.

Officials at Health Canada and the members of the standing committee are all to be congratulated when it's considered how far we have come towards improving consumer product safety since October of 2007.

On behalf of our association, I want you to know that I truly appreciate the opportunity you've given me to speak here today. I look forward to receiving your questions.

Thank you.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's again my pleasure to be here with you.

l'm here today to address the health portfolio's main estimates for this fiscal year, which represent an increase of approximately $236 million.

I also want to talk about how our spending and legislative priorities support a stronger focus on the federal role in the health and well-being of Canadians. In particular, this year's main estimates include investments supporting stronger product safety, further recruitment of new health researchers, and better health outcomes for first nations and Inuit.

But before I go any further, I want to address our response to the H1N1 flu virus.

For the better part of a month, public health officials in Canada and throughout the world have been monitoring the development of this virus and responding according to the level of risk. Thankfully, the impact on Canada has been relatively mild so far, but let me be clear: we cannot afford to let our guard down. H1N1 is a new strain of influenza. As a result, we can't be sure of the next turn it will take, so we will stay vigilant and be ready to respond as necessary.

Canadians can take comfort in the fact that we have a well-informed, well-supported, and well-developed pandemic preparedness plan. We will continue working with the provinces, the territories, and international partners, as well as learning from the data we have collected and the research we conduct at the National Microbiology Laboratory.

As precautions, we issued a travel warning advising against non-essential travel to Mexico, stationed more quarantine officers at Canadian airports that receive direct flights from Mexico, and distributed health alert notices to travellers--over 1.5 million a week.

I also want to highlight the achievements of researchers at the National Microbiology Lab who made an important discovery last week by sequencing the genome of Mexican and Canadian samples of this virus, essentially decoding its genetic makeup. This discovery has provided important information for researchers around the world. With this knowledge, we were able to eliminate genetic mutation as a possible reason for why the virus has apparently hit Mexico harder than Canada. Identifying the nature and composition of this virus will also help with vaccine development.

Health Canada experts are working with a vaccine manufacturer on the initial steps toward developing a vaccine. However, it is internationally acknowledged that producing a safe and effective vaccine could take up to six months. It is imperative that we balance the need for speed with quality and safety. In the meantime, should the situation dictate, we have safe and effective anti-viral stockpiles at the ready.

Madam Chair, let me say that so long as this situation persists, we will remain vigilant. As we have from day one, we will keep Canadians well-informed and well-advised as important details emerge. We are constantly considering the effectiveness of everything we do so we can make adjustments and continue to provide the leadership Canadians need and deserve. Providing leadership in protecting the health of Canadians against infectious disease is a key federal health responsibility. It is one we are committed to fulfilling.

As you know, our government has pledged to improve our ability to meet another key federal health responsibility. l'm referring to our commitment to modernize our safety system for consumer, food, and health products. Some of the essential changes we seek are represented in Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. This is important legislation that will bring our consumer product safety regime in line with the realities of today's global economy.

Of course, amendments to the Food and Drugs Act remain part of our food and consumer safety action plan, but for now, I want to thank the members on this committee for your careful review of Bill C-6.

I also want to thank you for your thoughtful input on Bill C-11, the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act. That legislation has been improved, thanks to the work of this committee. The bill will increase biosafety and security at Canadian labs that work with human pathogens and toxins. Please allow me to thank all members for their efforts in putting forward important changes to this bill at committee.

I join all of you in hoping for the quick passage of Bill C-6 and Bill C-11 through the Senate, towards gaining royal assent. The sooner this happens, the sooner the health of Canadians will be better protected.

Of course, research is essential in finding new ways of protecting and improving Canadians' health. It is for this reason that our government is providing further support to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This government is committed to supporting innovation and research.

Budget 2009, or Canada's economic action plan, contains some $5.1 billion in science investments. With respect to health research since 2006, CIHR has benefited from $117.2 million in permanent budget increases and a further $154.6 million in time-limited, targeted funding, supporting priorities such as pandemic preparedness. Furthermore, I'm proud to say that this year's main estimates include greater investments in scholarship programs designed to recruit and develop the health research stars of tomorrow.

And Budget 2009 commits even more.

In the past, CIHR-funded research has led to improvements in cancer treatment, cardiac care, and patient safety. As a result, l'm confident that the investments we're making today to attract new talent will lead to significant health improvements in the future.

This year's main estimates also include new investments for better first nations and Inuit health--today.

As I said in my opening remarks, we're dedicated to sharpening our focus on federal responsibilities. Among the most important objectives within my portfolio is ensuring the availability of health care services for first nations and Inuit.

Today, health disparities between aboriginal communities and the rest of Canada are apparent, and it's our goal to reduce them. As a result, these main estimates invest more than $200 million for core first nations and Inuit health programs, services, and infrastructure to better meet front-line demands.

Indeed, these investments represent a clear focus on federal responsibility, one of my portfolio's primary objectives since 2006. And future decisions will continue to be made along these lines.

Accordingly, this same approach was taken during the health portfolio's strategic review process. In February, I know, members of this committee had questions regarding this, and my officials and I are committed to discussing details with you today. Across the portfolio, Health Canada, the Public Health Agency, and CIHR carefully reviewed their programs to ensure their efficiency and effectiveness. The goal was to reallocate funding to better meet Canadians' needs.

In doing so, officials were asked to propose ways for making programs and services more effective and efficient, to focus on providing programs that are consistent with federal roles and responsibilities, and to align federal activities with the needs and priorities of Canadians. The portfolio will realize the following savings: $44.6 million in 2009-10, $61.7 million in 2010-11, and $108.4 million in 2011-12.

Additionally in February, some committee members feared there would be cuts to important aboriginal and women's health programs. l'm happy to say that these fears were unfounded. In fact, the reinvestments we were able to make will improve our ability to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

For example, Budget 2009 included $35 million over three years to CIHR through the Canada graduate scholarships program to support future research stars, $440 million for first nations and Inuit health care and infrastructure, and $500 million to accelerate the use of electronic health records in Canada, which will lead to higher-quality, more effective health care. These are important investments that are in line with the priorities of Canadians.

In conclusion, I want to take a moment to salute my officials and all employees who have worked so hard in responding to the challenge of the H1N1 flu virus. I also want to thank our partners, both internationally and within Canada, for their ongoing collaboration.

Let me also thank the committee for your work, past, present, and future, and I look forward to the observations that will come from your study on health human resources as well as from the new subcommittee that will study the impact of neurological disease.

As we take further actions to sharpen the focus on the federal role in health, I look forward to your ideas. Thank you, also, for accepting my invitation to visit Nunavut later this month. In my February appearance before this committee, I said that our vision needs to extend north of 60 if we want to be truly national.

This will represent the first time in history that the health committee has visited my home territory, so I thank you for accepting my invitation to broaden our perspective to account for the full vastness of the country we all love so much.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right. I do understand.

I think, Commissioner, we saw this in Bill C-6, the health bill on human pathogens and toxins, where information could be shared with foreign governments, but the conditions were vague, it could be passed on again, and there were no conditions on how long that information could be kept. It really gets a little convoluted when you get those kinds of things happening.

We'll certainly be commenting on numbers 11 and 12, even though we haven't had witnesses to give us much input. As usual, you've acquitted yourself very well, I think, with your colleagues, in presenting your views on these things to help us better understand where you'd like to go with this.

You're an officer of Parliament and you're charged with a significant responsibility on behalf of Canadians. We know that you're here with the best interests of Canadians at heart, so we thank you kindly for that input.

The committee would like to meet in camera for a short while, so I'm going to excuse you now.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I don't want to get hung up on the title, but the function of the federal government to regulate which chemicals can and cannot be used appears to be a big barrier to what the provinces want to do in reducing toxins in the environment.

I am curious that you would want to put your energy into Bill C-6 to accomplish some of that, as opposed to.... In getting to the goal of having fewer toxic compounds in the environment, do you see that being as effective as making the regulations more effective, whether it means more resources or assessment and amendments to the legislation CEPA is dealing with? I ask because we just aren't moving fast enough to identify and get rid of them.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That question has been asked a number of times since the start, but don't you think, still in the context of the fight against tobacco, that it would be better to give the present Tobacco Act more teeth than to include this part in Bill C-6? How could this help you in concrete terms? A little later earlier you talked about blocking certain new products that might be toxic. In Quebec, those products are already hidden; it's extremely difficult to advertise them. It is increasingly difficult for young people to obtain those products, despite the attempts by the tobacco companies to promote them. It's increasingly complicated for them. Don't you think that giving an anti-tobacco act more teeth would be more useful to you in fighting smoking?

[Cynthia Callard]

This takes us back to the beginning of the Hazardous Products Act. In 1969 when it was brought in, another committee was going on at the same time, called the Isabelle committee. They were receiving all the information about the health hazards of smoking and they were trying to figure out what to do.

At that time it wouldn't have made sense to put tobacco in the Hazardous Products Act because people really didn't know what to think about it. The concern was that it was so dangerous it couldn't be made safe. So if you put all products under the Consumer Product Safety Act, then all tobacco sales would be illegal. For many decades, the health community has been strongly of the view that they don't want to make tobacco products illegal. Putting them underground is not the solution. The solution is to work within a legal system and encourage people to stop smoking.

Virtually all the people who smoke now started smoking after 1969, in fact a good number of them started smoking after the most recent Tobacco Act was passed in 1997, or the first Tobacco Act was passed in 1988.

Another historic example is that between 1986 and 1988, for two years, a committee just like this considered putting tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act and in fact decided to do so. That was Bill C-204. The government introduced another bill, called Bill C-51, which replaced it. In fact, it was written so that if one bill passed, the other one would die.

We've gone this route before of where to put it. We don't want to make tobacco products illegal, but we don't want to continue generation after generation.

So my proposal is that this is the moment we're going to cut the time. We're going to say yes, we'll live with that. People can continue to sell the ones they've got on the market. They can continue to be sold the way they're sold and be governed that way. But from this day forward, we won't have little novelties like a new pack, or a new brand that opens in a fancy way that are all trying to get people to try to use the products. We'll say there will be no more of that stuff. We're only going to live with yesterday's mistakes; we're not going to make more. We don't want to make it illegal, but we don't want to continue the problem.

This is the solution I am proposing to the committee as a way of using the opportunity of Bill C-6 to achieve justice in the manufacturing sector so that all consumer product manufacturers are treated the same at some point, and to achieve public health by reducing the amount of product-based tobacco promotion that will take place.

Thank you.

[Marie Adèle Davis]

Pam mentioned the case of baby walkers, which the Wal-Marts, the Zellers, and the Bay banned, but for which there was a whole sub-market, if you will, on the corner of the street, through garage sales and so on. Having legislation that will lead to more information being in the media and more information being on our website or the Safe Kids Canada website will just help to alert people who may sell them that it is illegal to sell them, and as I said before, it will alert parents that these are products that are not safe.

I can't emphasize enough my agreement with what Pam said during her presentation: that parents will believe that if something is for sale in Canada, it is safe. In the case of the people who were selling that back-to-sleep product and saying, right on their box, “will keep your baby in the position recommended by the Canadian Paediatric Society”, they are going to believe it's safe.

For me, what Bill C-6 does, especially by giving the government the power to pull things off the market very quickly and then to work with us to inform consumers, to inform health care professionals, is just get the word out.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

That's great.

Turning to the Canadian Paediatric Society, I know you also mentioned the magnets and the walkers. How does Bill C-6 help to ban those products faster than the current regime?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming, and thank you for your overall support of this very important bill.

As a new father for fourteen months, I've been out looking at all the different products and buying some things and also trying to do some research here and there where I can. However, you rely on the big stores to help you out on that as well.

I'm going to start off with Safe Kids Canada. How will Bill C-6 promote the objective of safety of children, for children of today and tomorrow?

[Aaron Freeman, Policy Director, Environmental Defence]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

We think this legislation is an important step in bringing Canada up to the standards of other countries in terms of consumer protection from toxic chemicals. We feel this legislation could be greatly strengthened, however, to place Canada among the global leaders in consumer protection and to promote clean technology and jobs in the new economy.

I'd like to propose some possible amendments that we, along with other organizations, believe would significantly improve the bill while still addressing many of the concerns you heard from departmental officials earlier this week. I've submitted to the committee a more comprehensive list of recommendations, which I believe you have before you. They were distributed by the clerk.

I'd like to focus my comments on those dealing specifically with the phase-out of toxic chemicals and a labelling provision to ensure that consumers are made aware that a toxic chemical is contained in a consumer product. The idea here is that if a chemical causes cancer or is a reproductive toxin, there's really no reason it should be used in a consumer product. It was argued here earlier this week that you can't eliminate some chemicals from a product, given the technologies available to detect chemicals at smaller and smaller levels. However, in virtually all cases, including here in Canada, when government bans a chemical, a de minimis threshold is established.

Under California's Proposition 65 law, for example--this is a law that has been in place for more than two decades--the government establishes safe use thresholds that allow well-accepted de minimis thresholds for each substance. Even in Canada's own Hazardous Products Act we allow for background levels of lead under what we call a ban on lead in children's jewellery. These levels are in line with background levels of these substances. This is a well-accepted regulatory practice.

Some may argue that if the level of a chemical is safe, there's no reason to restrict it from a product. However, for many carcinogens, there is no known safe level, and for many developmental toxins it's been shown that low doses may actually be more hazardous than higher doses.

Even beyond these examples, to say that the concentration of a toxic chemical falls below a risk threshold is not the same as saying that it's safe. This approach also seems to ignore the effects of cancer-causing agents in our environment and the need to reduce harmful chemical exposure population-wide.

By focusing on the individual effects resulting from each product use, the department is ignoring the cumulative and synergistic effects of exposure. While exposure from a single product may fall below a risk threshold, there is still a need to reduce overall exposure for many chemicals that have multiple sources and to reduce those sources wherever possible. This is consistent with the precautionary approach, the specific principle of Bill C-6, as well as with international environmental law. The department's approach would appear to be directly contrary to this principle, demanding full scientific certainty before acting to prevent adverse effects.

This is all the more important with regard to environmental exposure. Addressing broader environmental harm caused by consumer products is embedded in the preamble of Bill C-6, yet the department's risk threshold approach--examining one chemical's risk for one person from one product--would often preclude a broader analysis of environmental harm.

For these reasons, we propose a five-year phase-out of chemicals that are known to be potentially carcinogenic or that are reproductive toxins. We've included an exemption provision for the small number of cases in which a chemical can be shown to be harmless and for cases that would involve severe economic hardship. The general prohibition in the bill should also explicitly make reference to exposure via the environment.

Second, I'd like to deal with the labelling issue that came up in testimony earlier this week and that my colleague Ms. Checkland mentioned in her testimony today. As Ms. Checkland has pointed out, there is no assurance that the globally harmonized system will be in place any time soon. However, if a GHS labelling provision is indeed just around the corner, a statutory backstop that provides a legal requirement for labelling within one or two years should only help the department to focus its discussions with stakeholders.

There are some key elements that this legal requirement for labelling must include.

The first is that the list of products covered by the labelling requirement must be comprehensive. As Ms. Checkland pointed out, the current range of products being considered by the department under the GHS system is quite narrow. It does not include the vast majority of household items, including toys, consumer electronics, household furnishings, clothing and textiles, and many other products. The labelling provisions should cover all products that fall under the proposed new Consumer Product Safety Act.

Second, the chemicals on the labelling requirement list should include all chemicals that have been identified as health toxins under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The list should also include internationally listed carcinogens and developmental toxins. Departmental officials raised a number of examples of where such chemicals are in substances such as coffee. That was one of the examples they gave. However, these examples are mainly in the food and drug sector and are well beyond the scope of this bill. Even in the smaller number of cases where the chemical poses no significant health risk in a particular product, the committee can easily put in place an exemption provision.

Third, the label itself should be crafted with a clear hazard label, with the particular health hazard readily apparent to the consumer.

This approach, with these three elements, is consistent with the department's current intentions under the GHS, but their approach would have to be broadened to include far more sectors and more specified chemicals.

Bill C-6 does provide the authority for the minister to require labelling, but such discretionary provisions already exist in CEPA and other legislation and are not being significantly used. Clearly, without a legal requirement, this sort of labelling is very unlikely to happen.

Other jurisdictions globally have moved ahead of Canada on reducing the risks from toxic chemicals in consumer products. Since 1987, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, what I referred to earlier as Proposition 65, has required warning labels for approximately 775 carcinogenic and reproductive toxins. Other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, Massachusetts, and now Ontario, have employed a regulatory approach of eliminating toxic chemicals in the production process and requiring substitution of safer alternatives. These approaches go well beyond the safe threshold approach the department advocates.

We hope the committee will consider bringing Canada up to the standards of these leading jurisdictions and increasing the level of protection afforded to Canadian consumers by providing much-needed information and phasing out toxic chemicals from consumer products.

Thank you.

[Cynthia Callard, Executive Director, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada]

Thank you very much.

I see Bill C-6 as a bit of an historic opportunity. It's not very often that Parliament receives legislation as powerful as this: legislation that creates a whole new framework for corporate responsibility and removes some of the leg irons from health inspectors and allows them to respond to product-based health threats as they are happening.

I'm a fan of this bill, but I'm here to encourage you to amend the bill to ensure that it achieves its objectives and doesn't allow harmful compounds or products to remain improperly regulated.

As a start, I urge you to begin with the recommendation of the Canadian Cancer Society to delete subclause 4(2). Unless amended, this bill will put stronger legal obligations on the manufacturers of floor polish than it will on tobacco manufacturers. I think this is not consistent with our usual approach to targeting the most harmful products.

I hope you'll go further, however, than just changing a statutory exemption into a regulatory exemption, and that you'll see the value of amending the bill to bring tobacco companies' responsibilities in line with those of other manufacturers. We've circulated an amendment that proposes to do this. This amendment would narrow any regulatory exemption for tobacco products to only those products that were on the market on the day that Bill C-6 was introduced in the House.

Tobacco is a historic mistake. We inherited it as a problem. Our parents inherited it as a problem. Unless we do things differently, our children will inherit it as a problem. But the mistakes of the past don't have to be repeated in the future, and they don't have to be repeated in Bill C-6.

The amendment we propose would make 2009 the year when the special exemptions for tobacco companies come to an end. It would not remove the legal supply of cigarettes; it would draw a line in time that accepts the mistakes of the past by exempting existing products but refuses to continue that mistake into the indefinite future.

I'd like to illustrate the need for this approach by presenting the novelty tobacco products that I brought with me today. The clerk, I believe, has circulated one or two. I have a box of others.

About four years ago, tobacco companies exploited some loopholes in the Tobacco Act to launch kid-friendly flavoured tobacco products. With no health warnings, bright colours, and affordable packaging, they look innocuous. These products are inherently harmful, as are all tobacco products, but they are also unreasonably harmful because they're packaged and designed to lure non-smokers into smoking, and because they're packaged in ways to defeat health regulations.

Health Canada would have been the first to know about these products, and the first to receive the survey results showing that the marketing of these products had reached one in three Canadian kids aged one to 19, and that half of the kids who smoked these products never smoked cigarettes. Yet Health Canada did not have the tools to get these products off the market in a timely way. They still don't.

I'm hopeful that Parliament will soon address this serious problem. Bill C-348, introduced by Ms. Wasylycia-Leis earlier this spring, will do the trick and deserves your active support. The Prime Minister has also promised to bring in a government bill that will hopefully also receive strong support from all sides of the House. One way or another, we need a law soon.

Bill C-6 will not solve the problem of these products. It's too late for that. That barn door is open and the horse is gone. But these products exhibit the general problem that Bill C-6 would fix in the future.

The inventiveness of tobacco product companies has not been exhausted. Since Parliament passed the Tobacco Act in 1997, more than 80 patents and 100 trademarks have been filed. The trademarks and patents of today are the products of tomorrow. Traditional laws like the Tobacco Act are not up to the task. They can't pull products off the shelves.

We are told that these products, even when they're banned, will have to stay on the shelves until the supply is exhausted. They are dangerous enough to be taken off the market, yet curiously, we expect consumers—in this case consumers we know to be children—to buy and smoke every last one. The Ontario government banned these products in December, yet on Tuesday I bought the ones I've provided today for you--five months later.

In contrast, Bill C-6, if adopted, could see future products of this type taken off the shelves immediately if a company tried to market them. But its biggest strength would be in the general prohibition clauses of the law. Companies would stop marketing new products unless they could make their products safe enough to satisfy clause 7 of the law, which is the general obligation to not sell products that are a danger to human health or safety.

I see Bill C-6 as an excellent complement to the aging Tobacco Act. The two acts together will, for the first time, make it possible to effectively prevent product marketing for tobacco.

On Tuesday, I listened carefully to the rationale given for the statutory exemption for tobacco products. If I heard correctly, the department's reasons were twofold. First, they felt the Tobacco Act was sufficient. Second, they didn't want to be taken to court by tobacco companies. I don't share their view that the Tobacco Act is sufficient. Also, I find it revealing of the continuing power of tobacco companies to bully the government into inaction that the department would even cite concerns about going to court.

Parliament made an understandable mistake in 1969 when it failed to include tobacco products in the first Hazardous Products Act. But there have been several subsequent attempts by parliamentarians to fix that mistake. On at least two occasions, the House of Commons and Senate have worked independently of government officials to include tobacco in the Hazardous Products Act. Once was in 1988 with Bill C-204, which had advertising restrictions, and the second time was in 2004 with Bill C-260, on flammability standards. Tellingly, both times, elected members worked across party lines to create a law within Parliament, not just use Parliament to pass a law drafted elsewhere.

Twice before, this House has worked together to insert tobacco products into consumer product safety law, where I think it properly belongs. I hope you will see the merits of doing so a third time.

Thank you.

[Pamela Fuselli, Executive Director, Safe Kids Canada]

Thank you.

Safe Kids Canada is the national injury prevention program of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, or SickKids, as it's known. As a knowledge broker, Safe Kids builds bridges between researchers, practitioners, policy-makers, and the public so that activities, messaging, and tools can be based on the best evidence available and make the best use of scarce resources.

Our vision is fewer injuries, healthier children, and a safer Canada. To achieve this vision, our mission is to lead and inspire a culture of safety across the country using a comprehensive and innovative approach. In pursuit of these goals, Safe Kids raises awareness, develops strategic partnerships, brokers knowledge, and advocates to prevent serious injuries among children, youth, and their families.

So why is children's injury prevention important to us? In our 2006 injury trend report, we found that on average 390 children and youth are killed every year, and another 25,500 are hospitalized for serious injuries in Canada. Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for those between the ages of 1 and 14 years.

Preventable injuries to children cost Canadians approximately $5 million per year. Many of those who survive are left with lifelong disabilities, increasing the impact of injuries on both individuals and families. What may be more surprising, which Marie Adèle referred to, is that the majority of these injuries are predictable and preventable. In addition, many effective interventions that are already known have not been widely implemented.

Injuries specifically from the use of consumer products are common, frequently serious, and sometimes fatal. Between 1990 and 2007, over 1.6 million children and youth visited emergency departments across Canada for the treatment of injuries. In recent years, almost half of those injuries involved consumer products such as furniture, toys, and window coverings.

There appears to be a disconnection between product safety realities and consumers' expectations. Recent survey results from Safe Kids Canada have shown that even though more than half of parents knew that injuries were the leading cause of death for children, and 70% of them believed injuries were preventable, the majority of Canadians believe that if a product is available for sale on the market in Canada, it is safe or has been tested for safety. Children are particularly vulnerable to product-related injuries due to their age, physical attributes, cognitive abilities, and developmental stage.

In Canada, a variety of consumer products have no regulations, particularly children's products such as bunk beds and trampolines. The current Hazardous Products Act, which is over 40 years old, is limited in scope and lacks the government's recall powers and the ability to be proactive.

While Safe Kids Canada acknowledges that the consumer product landscape is complex and global, there is the ability to renew and modernize current legislation to address these challenges. This is an essential component of a comprehensive approach to injury prevention. The Canadian consumer product safety legislation is a positive step forward, as its three main principles--active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response--enhance consumer product safety through the renewal and modernization of Canadian legislation. It is proactive and seeks to address issues before they happen.

The active prevention pillar of Bill C-6 outlines a new general prohibition against the manufacture, importation, advertisement, and sale of consumer products that are, or are likely to, pose an unreasonable danger to the health and safety of the public. An important component in this pillar is the inclusion of “manufacture”, as previous bans under the Hazardous Products Act only prohibited importation, advertisement, and sale. This puts the onus on industry to develop and keep in mind the target audience they have for their product when they're designing it.

Injury surveillance systems need to be enhanced to include the ability to monitor product interactions and outcomes, including tracking injury, product data, and product use. The targeted oversight pillar in Bill C-6 gives the government authority to require industry to report health and safety issues concerning their products. It also requires companies to conduct safety tests and be responsible for the products that are brought into Canada.

Investments are required for response and enforcement through increased inspectors. The rapid response pillar of Bill C-6 gives the government authority to issue mandatory recalls of dangerous products. Currently under the Hazardous Products Act, the government can only issue public advisories or warnings, and it relies on industry to voluntarily recall a dangerous product. This makes the process long, resulting in delays in removing dangerous products.

Safe Kids Canada would also like to see increased public access to consumer product safety information through effective communication strategies. Since 2003 Safe Kids has worked with the federal government on legislative renewal to strengthen consumer product safety legislation and ensure that products available for sale in Canada are safe. We've participated in consultations along with other organizations and support enhancing the consumer product safety program's capacity for injury surveillance, reporting, and consumer education.

Safe Kids Canada has partnered with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency extensively on various injury-related issues, including consumer product safety. We have participated in consultations like the baby bath seats, and in partnership with Health Canada we communicate important information to professionals and the public. In addition, as Safe Kids Canada's executive director, I am the co-director of the Canadian hospitals injury reporting and prevention program, or CHIRPP, as it is well known, and I do that at the site located at Sick Kids.

As we have also heard, countries like the United States and the European Union have passed new consumer product safety legislation, and Bill C-6 would bring Canada in line with these global changes.

The ban on wheeled baby walkers is one of the best examples of why new legislation is required. For many years, over 10 in fact, major distributors in Canada voluntarily stopped selling wheeled baby walkers. Regardless of this, the product continued to be sold at second-hand stores, on street corners, through garage sales, and was handed down to friends and family.

For one of our campaigns, Safe Kids Week, in 2003, we launched a major national media campaign to raise awareness of the dangers associated with baby walkers. This campaign's message, to wipe out walkers, supported Health Canada's efforts to ban the sale, importation, and advertisement of baby walkers. With nearly 300 parents, doctors, and public health professionals participating in the advocacy campaign, Health Canada was able to make Canada the first country, and currently the only country in the world, to ban baby walkers.

Even with the industry challenge that was upheld, in 2007 the government concluded that wheeled baby walkers pose an unreasonable risk of injury and death. If the provisions in Bill C-6 had been in place this dangerous product would have been removed from the Canadian marketplace years before it actually was.

In another case, the case of yo-yo balls, Health Canada issued two public advisories to warn parents of the dangers of the yo-yo ball and sought voluntary compliance from suppliers and manufacturers, and importers and retailers, to not make these products available. Unfortunately, this approach did little to deter the toys from being found in stores and continuing to make their way into the hands of children. At least 20 cases of near-miss strangulation from yo-yo balls were reported to Health Canada. This did not account for the many incidents that occurred but are not reported. A number of countries, including France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Brazil, banned the toy. Quickly thereafter, Health Canada issued a ban on this product and sent a clear message that this toy should not be imported, advertised, or sold in Canada. Again, recall powers would have allowed Health Canada to remove this product.

There are more recent examples, like magnets, that have followed a similar process.

The complex supply chain for these types of products, many of which are manufactured overseas and distributed through numerous channels, makes voluntary banning even more difficult and ineffective.

While current legislation prohibits the advertising, sale, and importation of dangerous products such as wheeled baby walkers and yo-yo balls, there are other products on the market that still require regulation in the interest of child and youth safety, such as infant bath seats, which have been associated with unintentional drowning and provide parents with a false sense of security.

Examples of product regulations that have led to injury reduction include childproof lighters, fire-resistant clothing, blind cords, and product packaging.

Every year Safe Kids Canada, in partnership with communities across Canada, launches a national public awareness campaign focused on a particular injury issue. On May 25 of this year we will launch this year's campaign with a focus on consumer product safety.

The campaign messages, activities, and tools are based on best practices, and over 600 partners will be distributing valuable information to parents and caregivers about how to purchase, assess, and report issues with products, conducting activities like unsafe product roundup events, as well as encouraging partners to write letters urging the new consumer product safety legislation to be passed. In addition, Safe Kids Canada has worked with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency on a CHIRPP report , Child and Youth Injury in Review - 2009 Edition Spotlight on Consumer Product Safety, which will be released during this week.

Unintentional injury remains the leading cause of death to Canadian children. In fact, it's a leading cause of death worldwide, as reported in the recent WHO/UNICEF report released in December 2008.

Bill C-6 will provide an important foundation upon which products brought into Canada will be measured. Safe Kids Canada, together with our partners in injury prevention, has called for a national injury prevention strategy that would include leadership, policy coordination, research, surveillance, and public information and education. Renewals of existing product safety legislation would be in keeping with the policy coordination pillar of the strategy. Research and surveillance are also needed across injury problems, including on product-related injuries. Public education is another pillar of the strategy that applies to product safety.

Safe Kids Canada's goal is to keep Canadian children healthy, active, and safe. Product safety is in everyone's best interest, and everyone has a role to play—Canadians, industry, and government.

Thank you.

[Marie Adèle Davis, Executive Director, Canadian Paediatric Society]

A voluntary professional organization, the CPS represents more than 2,700 pediatricians, pediatric subspecialists, pediatric residents, and other people who work with and care for children and youth.

We are governed by an elected board of directors representing each province and territory. CPS members are committed to working together to advance the health and well-being of children and youth by nurturing excellence in health care, advocacy--which is why I am here today--education, research, and support of its membership.

We accomplish this mission in three ways. First, professional education ensures that those who care for children and youth have access to evidence-based research and clinical guidelines to provide the highest quality of health care to children and youth in Canada. Specifically around injury prevention, just to show you our dedication to this issue, at our upcoming annual conference to be held here in late June--and you're all welcome to come--we have at least two sessions on preventing injury, including one specifically concentrating on product safety for children under five. Pediatricians want to know what they can do to protect kids.

Second, we accomplish our mission through public education, providing parents and other caregivers with up-to-date information on disease prevention, health promotion, and injury prevention to support them in caring for their children and youth. Our parent website, Caring for Kids, for example, has over 150,000 visits per month. We also have an electronic parent newsletter, as well as a Facebook page. And as I will say later in my presentation, we would look forward to working with Health Canada and the Government of Canada to get the word out to both health care professionals and parents about Bill C-6.

Last, we accomplish our mission through advocacy. We want to work with governments to support legislative programs that protect children and youth from harm and promote healthy development. We are very active on the injury prevention front, especially at the provincial and territorial level. Injury prevention has been central to the mission of the Canadian Paediatric Society since its inception in 1922. However, even though many of us--CPS and Safe Kids, to name two--have been advocating for a national approach to prevent injury, we have a long way to go. As many of you know, the recent World Health Organization report entitled World report on child injury prevention gives a very disturbing picture of how many children and youth die needlessly or are injured every year. And this is something that is 100% preventable.

While Canada has made significant strides in reducing unintentional childhood mortalities and injury in recent years, we should not be smug about our progress, as the OECD still ranks us a dismal 22nd out of 29 developed countries in the prevention of such injury. We need to do more as a nation.

Therefore, the Canadian Paediatric Society welcomes the introduction of Bill C-6, as we strongly believe it will protect children and youth from injury. As just stated, we have long advocated for a Canadian injury prevention strategy. While Bill C-6 does not answer all the needs that would be met through the establishment of such a strategy--so we will continue to advocate for it--it is a vital component of what we envisioned: the federal government taking a leadership role within its powers to protect Canada's youngest citizens.

Perhaps one of the most useful roles I can play today is to tell you what the Canadian Paediatric Society has learned about product safety over the past few years. We have a joint program with the Public Health Agency of Canada, named the Canadian pediatric surveillance program, where every month we ask every pediatrician in Canada whether they have seen a child with a rare childhood condition or injury. In the last five years we have had the opportunity to study three injuries caused by commonly used infant products: wheeled baby walkers, which thankfully are now banned; infant bath seats; and magnets in toys.

So what did we learn? In light of the time available, I'm just going to speak about baby walkers and magnets today.

In the case of baby walkers, which we looked at in 2002, a voluntary ban had been in place for years on wheeled baby walkers, but children were still suffering injuries. We asked every pediatrician if they had seen an injury caused by a baby walker within the last 12 months. Eighty-four pediatricians had reported seeing a child with an injury they could remember, so it was serious enough that they could remember it. They reported seeing a total of 132 injured kids. Given that there is absolutely no development benefit to infants from wheeled baby walkers, one really must ask oneself, why did the product continue to be available in Canada?

When Health Canada righty initiated the process for a complete ban, one of the importers objected. This led to a long and costly review process, not only for government but the actual health care professionals who took their time to prepare for the hearings and to give up a day of clinical care to come to Ottawa and present. And at the actual hearings, the company that had asked for a review actually did not even bother to appear. So all of the witnesses in front of the review panel were organizations, like the Canadian Paediatric Society, that agreed with the complete ban.

What we would look forward to is the inclusion of the new general prohibition in Bill C-6, so the Minister of Health can now quickly act to remove dangerous products from the marketplace.

Turning to magnets ingested by children, when the CPS first started to hear from our members about their concern regarding the ingestion of small magnets, we were able to work with both Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to determine what pediatricians were seeing in their practices. Thirty-nine of the respondents to our survey were not even aware of the risk to children and youth--well, hopefully youth aren't swallowing them--from the magnets. There were 19 reported cases where children had swallowed the magnets, including a case of a perforated bowel, which is a very serious medical condition.

The information collected through this survey allowed us to better inform health care providers and the public about the risk of these toys and completely complemented the work of Health Canada and their risk communication efforts.

For CPS, one of the advantages of Bill C-6 is the mandatory reporting provision by the manufacturers. As Health Canada learns of risk associated with products used by children and youth, we can work together with them and with partners, such as Safe Kids, to get the word out quickly to health care providers and, through them, to the parents they serve.

Pediatricians are very committed to something we call anticipatory guidance--providing parents with the information they need to do the best they can. A large portion of the anticipatory guidance we encourage our member to do is around injury prevention. The more information child and youth health professionals have that they can share with families or that we can include in our public education pamphlets and handouts and on our web, the better. By providing very current evidence-based information, we can protect our kids from senseless injury.

Allow me to share with you another incident that occurred during the last six years. It demonstrates the importance of Bill C-6, specifically clauses 9 and 10.

As I'm sure you are aware, the CPS recommends that babies sleep on their back. We discovered that a product was being sold at a major Canadian retailer claiming to position the child for sleep in the position recommended by the Canadian Paediatric Society. The problem with that is that if you actually go and read our statement on safe sleep, it specifically says there is no need for any product or cushions to keep the baby on his or her back. In fact, we state that the crib should be free of all pillows, toys, etc.

At that point in time, we had little recourse to change the packaging, other than to file a complaint with the company, inform the retailer of the misleading claim, and then hope they would listen to us. With the new provision in Bill C-6, we can contact Health Canada, people with whom we share our value of protecting children and youth, and allow them to work with us to ensure that products are not being marketed to parents under false pretense.

In closing, we would like to urge that Bill C-6 be passed into law as soon as possible. The Canadian Paediatric Society looks forward to working with Health Canada to inform physicians of the new legislation to encourage them to actively report incidents due to a consumer product. Now there will be even more incentive for them to do so, because they will feel that something can happen quickly to protect the kids they serve. We look forward to using our channels to inform and educate parents of the enhancements to the safety of products intended for use by their children and youth.

I would also hope that as part of the action plan, as it's considered and finalized, there are funds to support Canadian surveillance to examine product safety for children and youth, as well as funds to support parents to obtain replacements for recalled essential equipment, such as cribs. We would hate to have a parent respond immediately to the recall and then put their child in an unsafe sleeping position. So we need to make sure we support parents in that way.

Thank you. Merci.

[Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst, National Public Issues Office, Canadian Cancer Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Rob Cunningham. I'm a lawyer and Senior Policy Analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society.

I'm a lawyer specializing in tobacco legislation, and I have been involved in tobacco control for more than 20 years. Before turning to Bill C-6, I want to note with appreciation the motion unanimously adopted earlier today by the House of Commons urging action on tobacco contraband. Thank you to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis for sponsoring the motion, and to all parties for their support.

The Canadian Cancer Society recommends that Bill C-6 be amended to remove the permanent exclusion for tobacco products. The proposed amendment is short and simple but very important. Tobacco products cause more damage to public health than any other consumer product, killing 37,000 Canadians per year. It makes no sense that Bill C-6, in subclause 4(2), would permanently exclude tobacco products under virtually all circumstances from any of the bill's provisions.

I say respectfully that the current approach to tobacco in the bill is incoherent. Perhaps I could invite members to turn to our written brief circulated to you. In tab 1 you see schedule 1 of the bill. This schedule lists products for which there are separate statutes that regulate those products and are thus exempt from the bill. This includes explosives, cosmetics, prescription drugs, drugs, food, pesticides, and so on. However, clause 36 of the bill would allow a regulation to amend the schedule so that all or part of the act could apply to one of these products listed here--explosives or pesticides--should the need arise, should it be advisable in the public interest.

If you turn to tab 2, tobacco, the most damaging consumer product, is treated differently. You see highlighted there in subclause 4(2) a permanent exclusion that can never be modified by regulation. Our recommendation is to move the tobacco exemption from subclause 4(2) and put it in schedule 1 so it is treated similar to all of the other products for which there are separate statutes that regulate them.

I was present Tuesday for the testimony of officials concerning the tobacco provision in the bill. I listened carefully, but no persuasive reason against the amendment was presented, in my view. It is the case that the Tobacco Act was the subject of a constitutional challenge and was upheld as fully constitutional. But that is also true for some other products and statues in schedule 1. For example, the Food and Drugs Act was upheld as constitutional, as was the firearms legislation.

For the tobacco amendment, there is no legal or constitutional impediment to making the amendment. In making this statement, as a lawyer I represented the Canadian Cancer Society for 10 years as co-counsel in the intervention in court to successfully defend the constitutionality of the Tobacco Act, including before the Supreme Court of Canada. We appeared in court alongside the federal government.

It is the case that with the proposed amendment the wording for tobacco in the schedule will be different from other items listed, but that is fine in order to deal with the cigarette ignition propensity issue. Parliament can do that and should do that. Doing so would not undermine the schedule or the act. Doing so would in fact strengthen the potential ability of the act to protect Canadians.

On Tuesday, Assistant Deputy Minister Paul Glover explained that the objectives of the bill are active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response. These objectives are certainly relevant in the context of tobacco. The government should 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.

On the other hand, maintaining the permanent exemption for tobacco products currently in subclause 4(2) would provide undesirable and unnecessary protection for the tobacco industry. There is no reason why pesticides, explosives, motor vehicles, cosmetics, and so on should receive more potential regulatory oversight than tobacco products.

During the second reading debate, Dr. Bennett, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, and Mr. Thibault expressed support for our proposed amendment on tobacco. We are grateful. We urge all members of the committee to similarly support this amendment.

Thank you.

[Claire Checkland]

Thank you very much.

As I mentioned, I'm Claire Checkland. I'm with the Canadian Cancer Society's public issues office here in Ottawa. I work on environmental and occupational exposure to carcinogens.

Thank you all so much for inviting us to present to this committee. We're very much looking forward to hearing more about this bill as it proceeds and to expressing to you our particular interests in this bill.

The Canadian Cancer Society is supportive of Bill C-6, and we're particularly pleased about its improved abilities to prevent unsafe products from entering our markets and the government's increased power to recall unsafe products. Of particular interest to the Canadian Cancer Society is the fact that this bill intends to address chronic health effects relating to consumer products as well as acute health effects.

I listened with interest on Tuesday as representatives from Health Canada described this bill, the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Early on in their presentation, a representative from Health Canada highlighted that one of the general prohibitions from this bill is that no manufacturer or importer shall manufacture, import, advertise, or sell a consumer product that is dangerous to human health or safety. We all know, though, that there are many products on the market that pose a risk to human health and safety. We all have them in our own homes. And these products will continue to be on the market after this bill is passed.

Some products inherently pose a risk to human health and safety. Many of these products are currently dealt with by existing regulations, the consumer chemicals and containers regulations, from 2001. These regulations ensure that chemical products that pose an acute health risk to consumers are labelled so that consumers are warned of the acute risks associated with the use of the products and are informed of how to use those products as safely as possible. We see these acute health warning symbols on products on the market today, for example the skull and crossbones or the explosives symbol.

Leading up to the consumer chemicals and containers regulations being updated in 2001, extensive discussions occurred about the need for a consumer product labelling system for chronic health risks associated with products. Some chronic health risks that were considered include cancer risks or reproductive toxicity. The idea was that a chronic health risk labelling system could parallel the system that was being updated for acute health risks.

At this time, though, work was ongoing towards the implementation of a worldwide chronic and acute risk labelling system called the globally harmonized system, or GHS. It was decided that for chronic health warnings, we would wait for the GHS.

The Canadian Cancer Society proposes that we not continue to wait for the implementation of the GHS, for which we have already waited more than 10 years, as Bill C-6 poses an opportunity to move forward with chronic health risk labelling now. This could easily be done so that it would comply with and complement Canada's future implementation of the globally harmonized system.

On Tuesday, there were several references to the status of consumer legislation internationally. Several times, both the U.S.A. and the European Union were mentioned. What was not mentioned, however, is that in December, 2008 the European Union passed legislation exacting timelines for the implementation of chronic health risk labelling on consumer products. The European Union continues to corner an increasing share of the market for consumers who want to ensure safety of products that they purchase.

It is also important to mention that while we support the implementation of the GHS, we also recognize its limitations. In Canada, the globally harmonized system will appear only on consumer chemicals and will not appear on a multitude of other products, such as textiles, electronics, or children's toys. Bill C-6, however, would apply to all of those categories and more.

It probably goes without saying that the Canadian Cancer Society, first and foremost, calls for the elimination of cancer-causing substances in products. When elimination is not possible and a carcinogen remains in a product, we call for that substance, or those substances, to be identified through the presence of a hazard symbol as well as a clearly visible statement about the presence of the substance of concern. This statement must be visible to the consumer at point of sale.

The Canadian Cancer Society supports the principle of community right to know and asserts that Canadians have the right to be made aware of harmful substances in their food and consumer products, the air quality in their communities, as well as the health risks found in their workplaces. Community right to know empowers us all to make informed decisions, take action to improve our living conditions, and maintain our personal health and well-being. It enables us to act as informed consumers.

Thank you.

[Robert Ianiro]

We definitely meet with the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs very regularly. Our area of the department has had a very collaborative and great working relationship with the fire chiefs for a number of years. We meet with them at least once a year when they come for the government relations week and on an ongoing basis on some of our initiatives. We are working with them right now on an information and education program for minors in the sale of lighters and matches at retail locations, for example. So we do have a great working relationship with CAFC.

I want to add one other point to your comment around dollar stores and electrical cords. I think you're probably making reference to a lot of issues in fire and shock hazards that come with what in a lot of cases are low-gauge wire, wire that doesn't meet requirements.

We're finding in a lot of these cases that these products appear to be certified but they're not. These types of products would be certified by ULC, the Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, or UL in the United States. They are using counterfeit marks.

Currently under the Hazardous Products Act, we have no ability or no authority to do anything, but under Bill C-6, clauses 9 and 10 do afford the minister with the ability to take action on false and misleading claims, including counterfeit marks, in relation to health and safety. We're not interested in Prada shoes and intellectual property rights violations, but anything relating to health and safety is captured under this bill.

[Paul Glover]

The very brief answer is that we do not anticipate that, but we have to anticipate that it might come up as we look at any particular issue. In the general design it is clear what the federal role is with respect to borders, importation, national standards, but then there are also local levels of government and different jurisdictions. We would want to make sure that we consult, collaborate, and cooperate with them as we move forward, perhaps in response to specific issues.

There is a clear federal role that Bill C-6 does enact for us to make sure that there is no duplication. But when dealing with any one particular issue, different jurisdictions sometimes have different strategies. We would want to work with them to make sure we're not setting conflicting directions for the industry and for consumers in a manner that would create confusion.

[Paul Glover]

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

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

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

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

[Paul Glover]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Charles Ethier]

That is really a very good question.

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

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

[Paul Glover]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Glover]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Pathogens and Toxins Act

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

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

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

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

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

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to emphasize this. The parliamentary secretary said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

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

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

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will read the summary of this bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would now like to elaborate on these three elements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I 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.

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

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

Business of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the debate today on an opposition motion. Tomorrow we will begin, and there is an understanding that we will conclude, debate on third reading stage of Bill C-14, the bill to address organized crime. Following Bill C-14, we will continue debate on the report stage amendments to Bill C-11, the human pathogens and toxins bill.

If time permits, we may begin debate on the second reading stage of Bill C-6 dealing with consumer product safety.

Next week, we have opposition days scheduled for Monday, April 27 and Tuesday, April 28. On Wednesday we will return to government legislation with the continuation of business from this week. We will also give consideration to any bills that are reported back from committee or sent to us from the Senate.

Pursuant to a special order and because of the Liberal convention, the House will not sit on Friday, May 1. Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is a long-standing tradition to give up a sitting day to allow a political party to attend a convention and we are very pleased to continue on with that tradition.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, Bill S-3, the energy efficiency bill, was read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Just before question period, we were debating Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act, but it appears the coalition of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc has been revived and it is supporting a motion that, if adopted, will defeat that bill. It is proposing to kill the bill before it even gets to committee. It is unfortunate that the coalition's first act is to abdicate its role as legislators by denying close scrutiny and study of a bill at a committee.

After my statement, the government will be calling Bill C-5, Indian oil and gas, followed by Bill C-18, the bill respecting RCMP pensions, which is at second reading.

Tomorrow, we will continue with the business that I just laid out for the remainder of today.

When the House returns on April 20, after two weeks of constituency work, we will continue with any unfinished business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-25, the truth in sentencing bill, Bill C-24, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement, Bill C-11, human pathogens and toxins and Bill C-6, consumer products safety. We can see we have a lot of work to do yet. All of these bills are at second reading, with the exception of Bill C-11, which will be at report stage.

During the first week the House returns from the constituency weeks, we expect that Bill C-3, the Arctic waters bill will be reported back from committee. We also anticipate that the Senate will send a message respecting Bill S-2, the customs act. If and when that happens, I will be adding those two bills to the list of business for that week.

Thursday, April 23, shall be an allotted day.

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.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)