Bill C-36 (Historical)

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

An Act respecting the safety of consumer products

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

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, October 28, Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, is deemed read a third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the third time and passed.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill, because it means that it is one step closer to becoming law.

The NDP has advocated for consumer protection for years. Judy Wasylycia-Leis, my former colleague, the former member for Winnipeg North, has been on this file for years, advocating for stronger consumer protection. I know that our leader has raised it with the Prime Minister, and in the 40th Parliament, this session, the member for Sudbury has been a strong advocate for changes to consumer protection laws that would actually result in protection for consumers.

As we have heard a few times in this House, the previous legislation is 40 years old. It is time for a change. It is time to catch up and modernize. All parties are in agreement that this legislation is desperately needed.

However, that does not necessarily ensure that product safety is going to be ensured in Canada. This legislation is going to need to be enforced in order for it be effective. As the member for Elmwood—Transcona has said, there are serious questions about whether or not enforcement is actually going to happen and whether or not sufficient resources are going to be put into this bill.

This is a good bill. I am proud to support it. Our party is proud to support it. I am proud that it is going to the other place and may soon get royal assent. We are hopeful that it will be soon. However, we need to stop and think critically about whether this bill is just a shell being carried into effect for show, or whether it will actually provide protection for consumers.

There are a number of reasons to think that the government might abdicate its responsibility on this bill, should it be passed through the other place. The reason is this: despite the fact that the legislation is their own, and despite their repeated statements that this legislation is important to them, the Conservatives have dragged their feet. There is no other way of putting this. They have dragged their feet in introducing this legislation to the session. Previously, they prorogued Parliament and killed similar legislation, not once but twice. There was significant delay in getting this to first and second reading.

Now we are rushing it through. I think that is fair. We know what is in this bill. It has been to committee before. We have debated it before. However, it has taken a long time for us to get to this point.

Even though we are at third reading now, we have to ask why has this process has taken so long. Why has the government not acted quickly on this legislation, when there have been many opportunities to do so? I think it demonstrates a level of unwillingness to emphasize the safety of Canadians. It is disconcerting that so much time and energy, resources and effort, were put into trying to eliminate the gun registry, while product safety was put on the back burner.

The member for Portage—Lisgar is driving around in a minivan saying “End the registry”. In fact, that minivan was idling outside of Confederation Building the other day, so clearly they do not care about the environment either. There is no minivan saying “protect consumers”. There are no flyers going into other ridings, no radio or TV ads saying that we should protect consumers. All we get is foot-dragging.

Over the last month, we have received alarming reports about Health Canada's failure to warn parents about the risks of cadmium in children's jewellery. Health Canada testing showed unacceptable cadmium levels much earlier than we had previously known. Some of the products that they tested had cadmium levels of 93%, and yet the government delayed letting Canadians know about this. This is children's jewellery, and we all know what children do with small objects. It goes right in the mouth.

Health Canada has actually stated that cadmium is more toxic than lead. Testing that revealed unacceptable cadmium levels occurred in the 2009-10 testing cycle. But that was not the first time it was discovered. The previous testing cycle also revealed unacceptable cadmium levels. Health Canada advisories until now have not mentioned any of these test results. It is hard to imagine. These tests were on children's jewellery.

Our children were at danger of ingesting cadmium from these products because of the government's lack of transparency on testing and a lack of public education on cadmium's dangers. This is just plain wrong. It is irresponsible. I cannot understand why the government would not have mentioned these test results, especially when there was a 93% level in some products containing cadmium. The risks were inherently clear.

How can we trust the government to be the guardians of public safety under this new regime that Bill C-36 offers, when it failed to warn the public that its own tests were revealing cadmium in children's products?

The bill is good, but it is going to require significant resources in order to be effective. It is going to require an adequate number of inspectors and a team that is able to respond effectively to product safety concerns. They will have to respond in such a way that every Canadian will be kept safe from dangerous products.

It goes without saying that the government has done poorly on similar files, like food inspection. We should be questioning the Conservatives' willingness to fund product safety protections adequately. So it is a step forward, but without teeth. Without the systems in place to carry out the intended functions, it is going to be a colossal failure.

We will see the government trumpet the bill's passage and send a message to Canadians that their products are safe, but this message needs to be backed up with funding. It needs to be backed up with resources. Otherwise, we will be giving Canadians a false sense of security.

I stand here representing the voices of consumers from coast to coast to coast. I thank the government for finally bringing in this legislation, and I ask that they commit the resources to enforce it. Otherwise, the bill will be meaningless. I desperately hope that two, five, or ten years from now we are not lamenting a failure to act and saying “I told you so”.

I was reading the newspaper today and there was a quote by James Orbinski. It was not about this bill. It was about the access to medicines regime, Bill C-393. It was brought forward by my former colleague, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, but is now being handled by my colleague from Windsor West. Bill C-393, if passed, would facilitate selling developing countries generic drugs still under patent. It would fix the 2005 regime that was created by the Martin government. The bill should be supported by all members who believe in justice and fairness.

James Orbinski is the co-founder of Dignitas and a world-renowned health activist. In referring to Bill C393, he inadvertently said something related to Bill C-36: “Right now CAMR is a rhetorical success and a practical failure. Bill C-393 is an effort to make CAMR a practical success”. I read that and thought of Bill C-36. We must not let it become a rhetorical success but a practical failure. We need to ensure that there are resources in place.

I talked about justice and fairness. The bill should also raise levels of justice and fairness for low-income Canadians. It goes without saying that dangerous products touch the lives of socio-economically disadvantaged Canadians proportionately more than the rest of society. Cheap products rely on cheaper manufacturing processes, and these products are wreaking havoc on the lives of people who cannot afford better choices. These people are poorly positioned to deal with health consequences or with wages lost due to taking time off from work to care for themselves or their loved ones.

I believe strongly that product safety should not just be the prerogative of the rich. This issue goes to the heart of the equality principles held by Canadians, and product safety legislation should play a central role in moving toward economic justice in our country.

I would like to touch on an issue that I do not think has been raised in the House very often. Sometimes when I am out in the community I am approached by people who say that they have problems with Bill C-36. They see some constitutional issues they would like to see addressed; they are worried about the constitutionality of this legislation.

Recently, the member for Sudbury raised this constitutionality issue with lawyers who appeared at committee, asking whether we had to worry about this. According to the lawyers, there were no constitutional problems with this bill, nothing really to worry about.

The last time around, when this bill was called Bill C-6, it made it through the House and was then sent to the other place. When senators considered the bill at committee, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre made a presentation on this specific issue. It is not only important for members of the House to understand some of the constitutional issues that were raised, but also some thorough analysis would show, that we really do not need to worry about.

For background, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre is a non-profit organization that was established in 1976. Its mandate is to enable the representation of ordinary and vulnerable consumers when decisions are made concerning the important products and services they obtain. Of course, they are a natural organization to turn to when we consider product safety, whether it is legislation, regulation or action.

PIAC made a formal written presentation to the senate committee and I will read from the memorandum it submitted. I reads:

It is particularly disheartening to find the oppositional posture to this Bill presented as a matter of protection of the civil rights of business and property owners engaged in the sale and distribution of the consumer products that are the subject matter of this bill. Such individuals are amply protected by the provisions in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and possible civil remedies for government behaviour that exceeds the ambit of its protective statutory mandate. Monetary loss, embarrassment and hurt feelings are regrettable, but nonetheless compensable in the event of improper government conduct.

On the other hand, harm caused to public health and citizen livelihood may only be imperfectly remedied. What will be the explanation given to a parent grieving the loss or permanent injury of a child caused by the use of a product irresponsibly brought to market, when the reason is the lack of, or delay in application, of proper enforcement tools by the responsible authority caused by these amendments? There is no guarantee that even an inadequate remedy of compensation may be available in the event of a breach of health and safety requirements that is of such widespread effect that it is ultimately financially ruinous of the supplier.

The rights of defendants in circumstances where criminal and/or quasi-criminal related behaviour may be involved are important, particularly in relation to the consequences that may be visited upon a defendant. But it is decidedly inappropriate to expose innocent Canadian consumers to potentially negligent market behaviour because of the fear that government inspectors may lack either the appropriate motive or skills of enforcement. It is a grievous misallocation of the Senate's legislative superintendence to cater to the misplaced fears of a few over the real health and safety concerns of the many potentially at risk. PIAC urges the Senate to reject the amendments of the committee and adopt Bill C-6 without change.

Michael Janigan, the executive director of PIAC, has his name at the bottom of the memo. That is a good positioning of the two sides that we have to balance here. We need to look out for the consumer protection of Canadians. We need to ensure that people can rely on the fact that their products are safe. It is absolutely imperative. I think he did a great job of showing the balance that has to be struck between the two and where, ultimately, how justice would bring us to the one side.

It is a great summary of the constitutional arguments and I really do support the perspective of PIAC. Thanks should be extended to PIAC for getting involved in this issue and contributing to the discussion in the other place.

I am strongly supportive of Bill C-36. It is an excellent framework. We need to move forward after 40 years of old legislation that is not modern. Ultimately, we cannot make this a rhetorical success but a practical failure. We need to ensure that the government puts adequate resources behind this bill to ensure it is a success for all Canadians.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the third time and passed.

[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.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members in this House, over the summer and even before, received a lot of communication about this bill. I think there is a lot of misinformation out there.

I would like to ask the minister if she could answer the question about whether or not natural health products are regulated under this new Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

There is also misinformation about the ability to issue warrants. I would like to ask the minister if it is true that for the first time in Canadian history the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act would allow warrants to be issued to search private homes without evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

[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—

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, certainly in the course of my comments I will answer both of those questions. We will continue debate today on Bill C-49, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act.

Tomorrow we will call Bill C-36, the consumer product safety bill. Since it was only reported back from committee today, we will need to adopt a special order, which I will propose after my statement. This is a bill that will help protect children, help protect families, and I think it speaks incredibly well of all four political parties that they put politics aside and are seeking speedy passage of the bill. So I would like to thank everyone in all parties for their support on this important initiative. It is a good day for Parliament.

On Monday, we will continue debate on Bill C-47, the second budget implementation bill. I know the member opposite has been waiting for this and I hope he will have the opportunity to speak to this important piece of legislation.

That would be followed by Bill C-49, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act; Bill S-2, regarding the sex offenders registry; Bill S-3, the tax conventions; Bill C-41, strengthening military justice; Bill C-48, the protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murders act; Bill C-29, safeguarding Canadians' personal information; and Bill C-30, on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Shoker.

On Tuesday, we will call Bill C-32, copyright modernization. At the conclusion of debate on the bill, we will call Bill C-48, protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murders. Following Bill C-48, we will return to the list for Monday, starting with the budget implementation act, which again speaks to one of the member's questions.

On Tuesday evening we will have a take note debate on honouring our veterans and I will be moving the appropriate motion in a few minutes. I think it again speaks well that we are having a take note debate. I know the member for Vancouver East joined members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party in supporting this.

Thursday shall be an allotted day for the New Democratic Party, an opposition day as requested by the House leader for the official opposition.

Therefore, consultations have taken place among the parties and I am pleased to move:

That a take-note debate on the subject of the courageous contribution and service to Canada by Canada's Veterans take place pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, November 2, 2010.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, you are to be congratulated. We have Bill C-36.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

It is my understanding that the Senate has continued to have concerns with how clause 60 was drafted. In an effort to clarify any remaining concerns that the senators might have with this important health and safety bill, I would like to propose that clause 60 be amended to clarify the provision.

Madam Chair, I'd like to propose that Bill C-36 in clause 60 be amended by replacing lines 37 to 38 on page 31 with the following:

she must determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether the person named in the notice of violation

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The provisions in subclause 39(2) provide flexibility for the minister to make regulations without laying them before either house of Parliament. This recognizes that there will be regulations of an insubstantial nature and that there will be regulations made quickly to address threats to human health and safety. The government proposes to provide additional flexibility for the requirement to report by setting a time period of 30 sitting days of the House.

The subclause would be amended to address the confusion created by words that currently suggest that a minister can be a simultaneous member of both the Commons and the Senate.

So I'd like to propose, Madam Chair, that Bill C-36 in clause 39 be amended by replacing lines 37 to 39 on page 21 with the following:

before both Houses of Parliament, the Minister shall cause a statement of his or her reasons to be laid before each House of Parliament within the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the regulation is made.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thanks again, Madam Chair.

The series of amendments to clause 38 will avoid the potential confusion created by the suggestion that the minister could simultaneously be a member of both the Commons and the Senate. So the amendments would also address the unique nature of the Senate, where committees are not automatically seized of anything, but act on direction of the Senate chamber as a whole.

So I'd like to introduce the amendment, Madam Chair, and propose that Bill C-36 in clause 38 be amended (a) by replacing in the English version lines 34 and 35 on page 20 with the following:

paragraph 37(1)(a), (b) or (c), the Minister shall cause the proposed regulation to be laid before each House.

That's the first part of the amendment. Then (b), we would be replacing line 37 on page 20 to line 6 on page 21 with the following:

(2) The proposed regulation may

--so here we are changing the word “shall” to “may”--

be referred to an appropriate committee of the Senate, as determined by its rules, which may review the proposed regulation and report its findings to the Senate.

(3) The proposed regulation shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Health of the House of Commons or, if there is not a Standing Committee on Health, the appropriate committee of the House of Commons, as determined by its rules, which may review the proposed regulation and report its findings to the House of Commons.

And then (c), we propose replacing in the English version line 10 on page 21 with the following:

tion is laid before both Houses of Parliament,

So we would be add “both Houses of Parliament”.

And (d), we propose replacing in the English version line 12 on page 21 with the following:

regulation is laid before both Houses of Parliament, and

and then (e), replacing line 20 on page 21 with the following:

Minister shall cause to be laid before that House a statement

and (f), replacing line 23 on page 21 with the following:

before both Houses of Parliament need not again be so laid prior

Then (g), we propose adding after line 25 on page 21 the following:

(7) For the purposes of subsection (4), “sitting day” means a day on which either House of Parliament sits.