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.

National Strategy for Safe Disposal of Lamps Containing Mercury Act

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-238, an act respecting the national strategy for safe disposal of lamps containing mercury, put forward by the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. I would also like to congratulate the member on putting forth his first private member's bill in the House.

Bill C-238 would provide for the House to work in a bipartisan manner to not only pass the legislation, but begin the process of raising awareness and educating Canadians on the safe disposal of light bulbs containing mercury.

Mercury has the ability to be spread between water, air, and soil, which can significantly and negatively impact human and environmental health. It is well known that mercury is toxic and can cause health problems, including birth defects, rashes, and death. When low quantities are accumulated, they create a risk to mothers and their babies.

Mercury poisoning can also cause neurological damage, including slurred speech, memory loss, and tremors. The Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland did not get eccentric and zany from the exotic tea he was drinking; it was the mercury that led him down the rabbit hole of insanity.

Bill C-238 prescribes three important elements that need to be considered and supported. Precisely, it would establish national standards for the safe disposal of mercury-containing lamps; guidelines regarding facilities for safe disposal; and would create a plan to promote public awareness of the importance of those lamps being disposed of safely.

Previously, in 2010, our Conservative government released a risk management strategy for mercury, which proposed to reduce releases of mercury through the products containing certain toxic substances regulations. Supporting the bill is in line with the previous Conservative government's approach to controlling toxic substances that pose a risk to human health. For example, the previous government passed the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, Bill C-36, in 2010 and banned the use of bisphenol A in baby bottles.

As the environment is a shared jurisdiction with the provinces and territories, we also must be mindful to not overstep our boundaries as a federal government. I believe, however, the legislation would strike not only the right balance but could lead to a productive partnership on this file.

I appreciate that the legislation is focused and has a clear purpose as the thrust of the bill is to instruct the environment minister to develop and implement a national strategy for the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury. As it stands, many provinces and municipalities have different approaches to this issue. I believe that best practices can be shared, and when different levels of government work together, we will be able to educate consumers on how to safely dispose of these light bulbs without a considerable cost to the taxpayers.

In Brandon, Manitoba, the city has taken the approach of allowing our collection point for hazardous goods to be open six days a week, as an example. Furthermore, it has partnerships with hardware stores across the city at which people can drop off hazardous goods. The city communicates on a regular basis with its residents on which goods should not be tossed into the regular garbage pickup to ensure they do not end up in the landfill.

There are many other examples of municipalities having programs that accept household products that contain mercury. Some have implemented collection programs specifically for fluorescent bulbs, while others collect them as part of their household hazardous waste programs.

The reason the legislation is timely is many Canadians have fluorescent bulbs in their homes, their businesses, or farm operations. The reason we still use fluorescent bulbs is that they are more energy efficient than incandescent lights. The use of fluorescent lamps in place of incandescent bulbs can reduce energy consumption and in turn keep our electricity bill down. Nonetheless, we must not forget about their negative effect on the environment and on health.

The knowledge curve on properly educating consumers on how to safely dispose of them needs to be enhanced, and this legislation is a good starting point for that to occur. In fact, I hope the legislation will spur hardware stores, department stores, and just about anyone who sells florescent bulbs to take it upon themselves to share with their customers how to safely dispose of the bulbs and how to take the appropriate measures when a bulb is accidentally broken.

Moreover, the legislation can provide an opportunity for light bulb manufacturers to review how they package and ship their products to further enhance the safe transport of their products.

As with all programs and activities in the federal government, it is important to measure the effectiveness of specific initiatives. Far too often governments have good intentions, however, do not have systems in place to see if goals are being met. That is why it is necessary to emphasize that under the bill the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would have to report to Parliament. In particular, under clause 3, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would be responsible for preparing a report setting out a national strategy and implementing it. Moreover, clause 4 describes the review of the report where within five years of the tabling of the report and every five years after that the minister of environment would set out his or her conclusions and recommendations regarding the national strategy.

It is imperative that all levels of government work together to keep toxic substances out of Canadian landfills and waterways. I am pleased to highlight that in the member's riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, a company called DAN-X recycles mercury-bearing light bulbs, which is reducing the environmental risk to its landfills. Many members might be interested to know that recyclers can recover the mercury for reuse.

I am pleased that we have such effective facilities in our country. We need to encourage their growth and success in order to keep our lands and waterways clear of hazardous materials. It is important that all members of the House support the legislation as the associated risks from mercury to our health and the environment are too high.

I know all Canadians care about our environment, which is why it is so important to involve the provinces, territories, municipalities, and private industries in developing and implementing this national strategy. Working together and supporting each other is the only effective way to make positive changes in our communities, and in Canada as a whole. Together, we can provide strong environmental leadership and can protect our lands and waterways. After all, this is what Canadians expect from us. The time to fulfill this obligation in a tangible way is right now.

Food Safety

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.

As many members know, XL Foods is located in my riding in the city of Brooks, Alberta. I know many of the people who work there and know that they are very hard-working people.

First, I will reiterate what my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, said. Food safety is a top priority of our government, and I will give some examples.

We have hired over 700 food inspectors since 2006, including 170 meat inspectors. Our government has implemented all 57 recommendations from the Weatherill report.

If opposition members believe that the powers of the agency are not sufficient, they should support our government's legislation to make sure that CFIA will have greater authorities. Unfortunately, the member for Welland has already said that his party will challenge this important legislation. That is hypocritical.

We increased CFIA's budget of $744 million by $156 million, a 20% increase. It is clear that our government takes its job on food safety seriously.

The Liberal member for Malpeque has said that he personally believes our food is safe in Canada.

Moreover, an independent report states:

Canada is one of the best-performing countries in the 2010 Food Safety Performance World Ranking study. Its overall grade was superior—earning it a place among the top-tier countries

How about what Albert Chambers, executive director of the Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition, who said:

[The government] will position Canada's food safety regime well in the rapidly changing global regulatory environment.

I agree with these assessments and with the people of Brooks who strive every day to produce good quality food.

When Canadians buy food at the grocery store they expect it to be safe. When there is a recall of unsafe food products, it can shake people's confidence in our food safety system. It is easy to think that the system has broken down and needs to be replaced.

The ingestion of bacteria such as E. coli can cause serious and potentially life threatening illnesses. Our government takes any threat to the safety of our food supply very seriously. In fact, an OECD report has demonstrated that Canada has one of the best food safety systems in the world.

However, no system is foolproof. That is why there are safeguards in place to detect problems, and clear procedures and policies to address these problems as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

Clearly, there is still some confusion about how the food safety system works. Given the ongoing concerns about E. coli in beef produced at XL Foods Inc., I think it would be useful to examine the elements that make up Canada's food safety system, including food recalls. I will also comment specifically on the expanded alerts issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Everyone plays a role in food safety: consumers, industry and government. Research shows that most Canadians know how to handle food safely, but many do not follow through on a daily basis. For example, in a survey, half of the respondents said that they sometimes defrosted meat and poultry at room temperature. However, this practice can allow bacteria to grow on food and can lead to illness.

There are four key rules to food safety that bear repeating: clean, separate, cook and chill. Food safety rules in the kitchen will still go a long way towards keeping families safe from harmful bacteria.

Industry obviously plays a critical role in the food safety system in Canada. All federally inspected meat and fish processing facilities must follow strict guidelines and rules for food safety. This involves identifying what can go wrong, planning to prevent a problem and taking action when a problem is identified.

Industry must adopt science-based risk management practices to minimize food safety risks. To that end, industry works to identify potential sources of food contamination, to update production practices to reduce risk, to comply with inspection and testing protocols and to pull unsafe product from the market.

I will come back to the process of food recalls in a few moments.

Food safety begins with effective laws. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, delivers all federally mandated programs for food inspection, plant and animal health products and production systems. In short, food safety is CFIA's top priority. As Canada's largest science-based regulator, the CFIA holds industry to account for the safety of its products, responds to food safety emergencies, carries out food recalls and prevents the spread of animal disease to humans. However, food safety is a complex mandate. That is why to protect our food supply, the CFIA works closely with a variety of partners, including Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

One of the CFIA's key jobs is to inspect both domestic and imported food. It also inspects, audits and tests products to verify that industry is complying with food safety regulations and enforces those regulations in federally registered food processing facilities.

Once the food safety system has identified a contaminated food product in the marketplace, an investigation takes place that can lead to a food recall. As in this case, most companies initiate a recall once a problem is identified with their products. They do this to protect the health and safety of Canadians and certainly to protect their own reputation.

When dealing with potentially unsafe food, the CFIA's investigations are driven by three considerations: accuracy, thoroughness and expediency.

First, the CFIA works to get the facts straight. It analyzes production and distribution records, which can be in several locations. It locates food samples and conducts tests. It reviews labels, distribution and information and identification codes to help inform consumers about potential risks. In this way it strives to identify all affected products.

The gathering of facts is critical to a science-based thorough investigation. In the case of XL Foods, routine testing identified a positive E. coli sample on September 4. The CFIA has been investigating the problem and taking appropriate measures ever since.

The CFIA must balance the need for accurate and reliable information with the need to inform the public as soon as possible about potential risks. To achieve this balance, the CFIA issues regular alerts for recalled products while an investigation is ongoing. As a result, it may issue several public alerts for the same recall. Once a product is posed a health risk, it is recalled immediately. The CFIA does not wait.

This is an important point. The series of expanded alerts issued over the past weeks related to XL Foods reflect new information obtained during the course of a continuing investigation. This is a normal part of the recall process and in no way indicates unnecessary delays in informing the public about a health risk.

The CFIA expects industry to monitor higher than normal detection rates and to modify control measures accordingly. The agency's investigation has shown that XL Foods did not conduct its monitoring measures consistently at the Alberta facility. Moreover, the agency has discovered deviations from the company's control measures for E. coli. The company was not able to take adequate corrective action. As a result, the CFIA temporarily suspended the company's licence, and the meat plant remains under government oversight until further notice. At the same time, XL Foods continues to work with CFIA to identify and trace contaminated food products that may be in the market.

Let me be clear. The XL plant will not reopen until CFIA has certified it is safe.

As soon as it was aware, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency acted immediately to address the concern about the presence of E. coli in beef produced by XL Foods. The investigation continues, informed by science-based evidence and an ongoing commitment to protect the safety of Canada's food supply and the Canadian confidence in that food supply.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about the proposed safe food for Canadians bill introduced by our government in the Senate earlier this year.

In 1997 the CFIA was created to improve and modernize federal inspection activities related to food safety, animal health and plant protection. However, the creation of the agency was only the first step. Even in 1997, it was recognized that the legislative base for the agency would in time need to be modernized.

The aim of the proposed safe food for Canadians bill is to modernize and consolidate CFIA's food inspection and enforcement authorities. The successful passage of this bill will deliver more consistent inspection and enforcement authorities covering the food safety aspects of CFIA's mandate. In this way our government can provide a more consistent and comprehensive approach to the agency's inspection enforcement and compliance activities around food.

This new food safety statute falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. It enhances public and food safety security by modernizing and consolidating provisions in the current Canada Agricultural Products Act, CAPA; Fish Inspection Act, FIA; Meat Inspection Act, MIA; and provisions related to food in the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, CPLA.

The proposed legislation strengthens the agency's ability to protect Canada's food supply. It provides more consistent authorities for the food commodities regulated by CFIA. What we will have is a uniform set of powers, duties and functions for all CFIA inspectors, no matter what sort of food product is being inspected. This can only deliver better food safety outcomes for Canadians.

Let me mention some of the major provisions of the bill. The proposed legislation will allow our government to take appropriate actions when safety issues arise by issuing tougher fines and penalties, establishing a system to better track, trace and recall harmful products and prohibiting unsafe foods from entering the Canadian market.

An extension of regulation making authorities for export certification will provide Canadian exporters with business predictability if trading partners make certification a condition of market access. This will be accomplished by providing credible assurance to importing countries that Canadian exports are safe.

The bill would make it illegal to knowingly submit false or misleading information to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food with regard to any commodity or products covered by the act. This would protect consumers from fraud.

There are elements of the bill that industry would like to see enacted. The bill includes specific prohibition related to threats of tampering, making claims to have tampered and actual tampering. It covers hoaxes with regard to food and packaging. Currently these activities fall under the general of mischief in the Criminal Code. They need to be specifically identified for what they are: criminal activities which should be covered by very specific legislation.

Of great importance to all Canadians is that the bill prohibits the import of food commodity that is adulterated, that has poisonous or harmful substances, that is unfit for human consumption or that is injurious to human health. Products that are labelled contrary to the proposed regulations will also be prohibited.

I do not want the House to misunderstand and believe there are no current provisions protecting Canadians from such things, but the proposed bill consolidates the various pieces of prior legislation so these prohibitions reside in a single act instead of several different acts which only had bearing on specific commodities.

These acts, enacted at different times in our nation's history, provide an uneven and outdated legislative base that makes it difficult to deal with various issues in a uniform way. We need to enact this new legislation which brings all of these various commodities under a single umbrella.

By consolidating the authorities in the act into one consistent set of authorities under the bill, we give the CFIA the tools it needs to better protect Canadians and to enhance industry compliance. The CFIA will be better able to strengthen the security of the food supply and better protect Canadians' health.

They will give the CFIA enforcement and inspection powers that are similar to those in the consumer products legislation, Bill C-36. The bill will enhance existing inspection and enforcement tools at the Canada-U.S. border, providing the Canada Border Services Agency officers and CFIA inspectors with better controls when enforcing CFIA legislation on our border, at airports and in our shipping ports.

It is important to make clear what the bill does not do. The current roles and responsibilities of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will not change as a result of the bill. The Minister of Health remains responsible for setting policy and standards for food safety and nutritional quality. The CFIA will be responsible for enforcing these standards, as well as setting and enforcing other standards.

We are all familiar with the tragic deaths and illness resulting from a listeriosis outbreak in 2008. Hard lessons were learned from that event. Since the agency was formed, we have also had to deal with BSE, salmonella, E.coli and other threats that keep the importance of food safety in the Canadian consciousness.

It is because of this awareness of the potential threats that the concept behind the proposed safe food for Canadians bill has support from stakeholders and is seen as a benefit to all Canadians.

The listeriosis outbreak of 2008 prompted the Prime Minister to name an independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill, to look into the circumstances of the tragedy and make recommendations to our government on how to avoid having similar events occur in the future.

One of the recommendations, number 43 of 57, states that the government should “simplify and modernize federal legislation and regulations which significantly affect food safety”.

That is precisely what this proposed bill sets out to do. Our government committed to addressing all 57 of the independent investigator's recommendations. We are therefore duty bound to protect Canadians from future tragedy and see this legislation through.

Our government has a solid reputation for the safety of our food supply and we want to give the CFIA the inspection and enforcement capabilities that it needs to maintain that reputation and to build on it. I urge all hon. senators to join me in supporting this bill.

I want to reiterate that the XL Food plant will remain closed until such time as it meets all regulations and requirements of CFIA.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for bringing forth this important piece of legislation. I think all the parties agree it's definitely a step in protecting Canada's most vulnerable.

You've noted and have spoken on a couple of occasions about another piece of legislation, which I believe goes in that same direction. That's, of course, Bill C-21, the Standing Up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act. That's a significant piece of legislation, of course. It includes a mandatory minimum penalty of at least two years for fraud of over $1 million. It toughens sentences by adding aggravating factors that the courts can consider. These are significant factors, which include whether the fraud has had a significant impact on the victim, given the victim's particular circumstances, including his age, health, and financial situation, and also the offender's failure to comply with applicable licensing and professional standards. It also considers the magnitude, complexity, duration of the fraud, and the degree of planning that went into creating it.

How can we reconcile the proposed aggravating factors in Bill C-36 to be differentiated from the aggravating factors we have in this other important piece of legislation, Standing Up for Victims of White Collar Crime 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?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill S-3, An Act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Colombia, Greece and Turkey for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income--Chapter No. 15

Bill S-210, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament)--Chapter No. 16

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts--Chapter 17

Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs)--Chapter 18

Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (suicide bombings)--Chapter 19

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody)--Chapter 20

Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products--Chapter 21

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act--Chapter 22

Bill C-28, 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--Chapter 23

Bill C-58, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2011--Chapter 24

Bill C-47, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures--Chapter 25

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Canadian Council on Learning; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Public Safety.

Product Safety

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Senate voted in favour of Bill C-36, the Canadian consumer product safety bill. This important legislation will give us the tools to adequately protect Canadians and their loved ones. It replaces a law that was over 40 years old and now enables us to stand on a level playing field with our trading partners. It will protect us from unsafe products.

Part of the future of our health care system is passing good legislation. Although the bill, as well as its predecessor, passed through the House with the support of all parties, the Liberal senators consistently voted against it.

As they did last year at this time, all 36 Liberal senators who were present in the chamber for the vote last night stood and voted against it. Unbelievably, they voted against the health and safety of Canadians. Worse yet, they voted against consumer and product safety for our children at Christmas.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, and thank you again to the committee for the hard work on Bill C-36. I'd like to also thank the member for the question on the very important issue of lead.

I announced this week the regulations on consumer products containing lead, and these regulations will limit the lead content in certain products, including surface paints on children's toys, mouthpieces or musical instruments, and many other products that children may come into contact with, put in their mouths.

These challenges are another step in our government's implementation of the lead risk reduction strategy for consumer products to establish allowable lead limits in a variety of consumer products, particularly those that are used for children, but not exclusively. One example that we use all the time is pencils. We chew on pencils even as adults. So that's one of the areas we've targeted.

As the member is well aware, our government also proposed the Canada consumer product safety act, which is currently before the Senate, and I hope it will pass without further delay. Once it is passed into law, the act will modernize the government's approach to consumer product safety and include new measures such as the ability of Health Canada to order mandatory recalls of consumer products that represent an unreasonable danger to human health or safety and/or mandatory reporting of incidents or deaths from any consumer products. So we have initiatives like the consumer product safety legislation, Bill C-36, which would really give us the authority to respond and remove unsafe products from the marketplace.

Thank you for the question.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, it's a pleasure to be here to discuss supplementary estimates (B).

Before we get into the details of today's discussion, I would like to thank you for the hard work on Bill C-36, which is now before the Senate. The piece of legislation, once it comes into force, will provide us with the tools needed to recall dangerous consumer products.

Canada's Consumer Product Safety Act will have a profound effect on the marketplace. It will give consumers greater confidence in the safety of the products they find on the shelves of stores everywhere in this country.

We know that the discovery of things like lead in toys has rightly caused parents to be concerned. They know that young children put objects in their mouths as a form of discovery. The new limits on lead content that I announced this week indicate, not only to our industry but to those around the world, that we mean business.

Bill C-36 will give us new powers to deal with those kinds of problems more effectively. The new inspector powers in Bill C-36 are both fair and consistent with those of other federal laws. They are also consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions on the acceptable scope of inspection powers.

The safety of consumer products is something from which we can all benefit. We are working with industry to enhance consumer product safety and we are developing new tools to help us take corrective actions where problems arise.

While we have given a great deal of attention to that legislation and other safety measures, Health Canada has also continued to focus on the business of funding and administering other programs that protect and improve the health of Canadians.

Health Canada's 2010-11 supplementary estimates (B) include a net increase of $48.1 million, which brings its total budget to $3.731 billion for the current fiscal year.

We recognize the important part that research plays in ensuring the continued health of Canadians. This is why we have provided ongoing support and additional investments to Canadian Institutes of Health Research to support innovative and patient-oriented research that could have an impact on the health of Canadians.

Another important funding initiative supported by our government is an international initiative on Alzheimer's, and $5 million has been added for this purpose. Our government has invested more than $88 million in research regarding Alzheimer's disease and related dementia since 2006, and we are funding a four-year national population study on neurological diseases. In addition, important international MOUs have been signed with our partners from France, Germany, and the U.K. on Alzheimer's research.

I am particularly proud of the accomplishments we have made in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The Canadian HIV vaccine initiative, led by our government, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, highlights Canada's world-class HIV and vaccine research expertise.

CIHR is investing approximately $40 million per year in support of HIV/AIDS research. Canadian investigators, supported by this funding, are at the forefront of discovery, improving the health of those infected, and are working toward a vaccine. CIHR continues to invest strategically in HIV research and is actively implementing the CIHR HIV/AIDS research initiative strategic plan. This will ensure continued knowledge development and research capacity-building, as well as the application of new findings in HIV/AIDS research in Canada.

The landscape for health services on population health research in HIV/AIDS is changing in Canada through the support for two centres for research development in HIV/AIDS. These centres are building research networks, addressing high-priority research questions, and building knowledge translation capacity in Canada.

The Public Health Agency's national HIV laboratories and their surveillance and risk assessment divisions are active members of the World Health Organization's advisory network of experts that support the development and implementation of the HIV drug resistance, prevention, and assessment strategy.

The lab is designed as one of the very few specialized HIV drug resistance laboratories in the world. It will also provide training and technical support to laboratory staff in resource-poor countries, and will continue to lead the way in developing new technologies that will facilitate testing worldwide.

This past summer I travelled to Vienna, where I met with international leaders, and particularly with Bill Gates. As a result, our government will help advance the science for the development of a safe and effective HIV vaccine that will benefit those who need it most, and that's all Canadians.

I would also like to take the opportunity to inform members of this committee of the announcement I made yesterday, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, on the appointment of Dr. Singh and Dr. Esparza as co-chairs of the advisory board that will oversee the renewed Canadian HIV vaccine initiatives and its research development alliance.

Addressing the health concerns of Canada's aboriginal people comprises a portion of the funding under the supplementary estimates. It is targeted for programs that are helping aboriginal people, especially those living on reserve. One of the commitments in the supplementary estimates is our contribution to the Indian residential school resolution health support program. The Government of Canada is committed to supporting former students of residential schools and their families throughout the implementation of the Indian residential school settlement agreement. Health Canada is responsible for the resolution health support program that is part of the agreement, and we hope this will continue to have a positive impact on the health of first nations people.

We are committed to offering support services that take into account the culture and heritage of aboriginal people. Community-based healing programs, such as those for mental health and addictions, will assist these communities by addressing the health and social challenges they face. These investments represent a total of $5 million.

Additional funds have also been required to help in the transition from the outdated food mail system, which had been in place for more than 40 years. It is being replaced with Nutrition North Canada, a new retail-based subsidy program that will ensure northerners benefit from improved access to healthy and nutritious food throughout the year. Health Canada is allocating $1.5 million this fiscal year and $2.9 million annually beginning in 2011-12 for nutrition and education initiatives under Nutrition North Canada.

We also recognize that the availability of nutritious food and access to it is a starting point for a nutritious diet. These education initiatives will help northern Canadians put nutritious meals on their plates. Nutrition North Canada will be more efficient, more accountable, and more transparent. It will help make sure that northerners get the maximum benefit from the government subsidy for healthy foods. It will give retailers more control over their supply chain and therefore create more competition. That means there will be more incentives for greater quality control.

Fresh foods will get to the shelves sooner, making them more attractive to consumers. Our government is particularly proud of the efforts that have been made in the health promotion. Encouraging a healthy lifestyle is instrumental in maintaining a healthy body. It also means an overall improved quality of life and a healthier Canadian population, while being less onerous on our health care system. This cannot be truer than for young Canadians. Our intention is to encourage them to lead a healthier lifestyle right from the beginning.

For example, we have recently launched a bold new education campaign aimed at 13- to 15-year-olds to teach them about the dangers of illicit drugs. The centrepiece of this campaign is a commercial called “Mirror”, which dramatizes the harmful effects of drugs. It shows a young woman looking into the mirror and seeing what her life would be like if she experimented with drugs. The commercial began running two weeks ago and will be airing until March. During that time, we expect two-thirds of all Canadian teens between the ages of 13 and 15 to see it. This campaign is designed to be a powerful deterrent. Deterrence is an essential component of the government's national anti-drug strategy.

Last week I had the pleasure of meeting Gil Kerlikowske, an important figure in the battle against illicit drugs in the United States. We discussed many issues of common interest that have a bearing on the health of young Canadians and Americans. The most effective way to help Canadians is to give them the information they need to make informed choices. In fact, we have made many announcements in the past and there are more to come in the future about sources of information for parents with regard to the health and safety of their children.

Information and education are also playing an important role in our efforts to curb childhood obesity. Obesity rates among children and youth have nearly tripled over the last 25 years. Obesity increases the risk of developing some chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.

The federal, provincial, and territorial governments recently agreed to a framework for coordinating their approaches to promoting healthy weights among children under the age of 18. We have agreed to focus on making the environment where children live, learn, and play more supportive of physical activity and healthy eating. We will also try to identify the risk factors that can lead to obesity in children and address those issues early in a child's life. We agreed to find ways to increase access to nutritious food and decrease the marketing to children of foods and drink that are high in fat, sugar, or sodium.

An equally essential part of the plan to reduce obesity is the need to promote more physical activity. All levels of government need to be involved in finding more ways for kids to be active, both indoors and outdoors throughout the season.

The campaigns we are currently leading are designed to have an impact on the long-term health of many Canadians. By helping them change their lifestyles or avoid dangerous substances, we can prevent a wide variety of health problems in the future.

Through our nutrition facts education campaign, we are helping Canadians understand more about the foods they eat.

Our children's health and safety campaign strives to help parents protect their children from many potential hazards, and our national anti-drug strategy is helping to prevent young people from experimenting with illicit drugs and becoming addicted in the first place.

In the year ahead, we will continue to develop initiatives that support our long-term vision for health care in Canada, while tending to the short-term needs of Canadians.

I will be pleased to take questions from the committee.

Thank you.

[Athana Mentzelopoulos, Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Department of Health]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the consumer product safety-related aspects of the Public Health Agency's “Child and Youth Injury in Review, 2009 Edition”.

As you said, my name is Athana Mentzelopoulos. I'm director general of the Consumer Product Safety Directorate at Health Canada, and I'm accompanied today by Denis Roy. He is a mechanical engineer who works in the mechanical and electrical hazards division of my directorate.

The “Child and Youth Injury in Review” is an important publication for those who work in product safety. It helps to increase the public's awareness of the dangers that consumer products can pose, and it has helped us in our ongoing efforts to make products, and particularly children's products, safe.

Any product can pose a risk if it is used inappropriately. No doubt you have heard this truism in a variety of forms. Water, for example, is essential for life, but drinking a profound volume of water can be fatal. Equally so, no product can substitute for a parent or a caregiver.

In my area of work, one of our ongoing priorities is to inform consumers about the appropriate use of products. It is essential to follow manufacturers' instructions for use, for example. We also routinely issue reminders about safe use of and practices related to consumer products, and we frequently advise consumers about risks posed by consumer products, either as a result of their normal use or because of unseen or unintentional hazards.

Some recent examples of our work have been the series of warnings we have issued about the presence of lead and more recently of cadmium in children's jewellery. We have also continued to remind Canadians about safe sleep practices for infants, including the need to ensure that infants sleep in a crib that has been properly assembled and is free of bumper pads, pillows, and other decorations.

In the Consumer Product Safety Directorate, we regulate certain products and classes of products, and wherever we cannot sufficiently address and mitigate a risk through regulations, we have prohibitions. This is the case for, among other things, toys.

In Canada, safety requirements for toys are currently specified in the Hazardous Products Act and its associated regulations. Under this act, certain toys are prohibited, while others are restricted. There are requirements concerning the size of component parts of toys, allowable stuffing materials, and limits on the presence of lead and toxic substances, among other requirements.

It is the responsibility of manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers to ensure that they are complying with the Hazardous Products Act and the regulations. Product safety officers routinely monitor the marketplace and take appropriate enforcement action on toys and other products that contravene the legislation. We also have a laboratory, the product safety laboratory, that examines potentially hazardous products in order to assess the nature and degree of any hazards.

In our work on product safety we are attentive to the normal and foreseeable use of products. We consider dangers posed by consumer products to be those unreasonable hazards that are posed by a product during or as a result of its normal or foreseeable use and that might cause injury or death. There is a reasonableness standard that must be adhered to and that guides our work.

As many members here today know, Health Canada is currently proposing to change the legislative framework for consumer product safety. That legislation is now before a Senate committee.

As I mentioned, we currently work in the context of the Hazardous Products Act. That legislation is 40 years old and is a framework that only permits us to react to risks and hazards as they emerge through the preparation of regulations and prohibitions.

On the basis of this legislation, we have developed specific and very prescriptive regulations for toys, a prohibition on baby walkers, regulations for cribs and cradles, limits on the use of lead in children's products, requirements for teethers and rattles, and a prohibition on yo-yo balls, among many other things. All of these regulations and prohibitions will be transferred to the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, should it pass, and the level of protection they afford will be maintained.

The proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act—the CCPSA—will fundamentally change and improve the way we approach product safety in Canada. Bill C-36, the CCPSA, includes a number of elements that will help us to further strengthen consumer safety. It has a general prohibition against consumer products that are a danger to human health or safety. It would also require industry to report product-related incidents and would give the government the authority for mandatory recalls. That's something I know members here are very familiar with.

These authorities all support a three-pillar approach to product safety: active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response. These are essential pillars to our program, because we have a post-market regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada. That means there is no requirement for certification or for approvals by government for industry before they introduce new products to the market.

We need the tools in the CCPSA so that we can generate product-related intelligence that will be the basis of an early warning system when problems with the product emerge. In the future, should the CCPSA pass, we will be able to act quickly and proactively at the first signs of emerging product-related problems. Rather than necessarily going through the process of developing regulations to deal with product-specific hazards, we will be able to use the general prohibition as part of our step-wise enforcement to act quickly when we have determined that a danger to human health or safety exists.

Given the post-market nature of the consumer product market, the rapid innovation in consumer products, and the insatiable desire for new products and new design, work in product safety is never done. The CCPSA is one element of the government's food and consumer safety action plan. Through that plan, we have also been resourced for more inspectors, more outreach work to consumers and industry, and more work in the area of standards development. Through its elements, the food and consumer safety action plan is building a consumer product partnership in which industry is more aware of its obligations for safe products, consumers have more information about the products they are purchasing, and government has more flexible and modern powers to help ensure safety.

The Hazardous Products Act has served us well over recent decades of work. We have a significant body of regulations and prohibitions, and we also have an aggressive work agenda for modernizing some of those regulations and for developing new ones.

Just yesterday, our minister announced new changes to regulations under the act that will restrict the amount of lead in a variety of consumer products, including children's toys. We are also currently involved in a project with the United States and the EU, and more recently Australia has joined, to improve safety standards for corded window coverings. Our requirements in Canada for these products are already among the strictest in the world, but we are working with our international partners to address certain hazards posed by Roman shades and by roll-up blinds.

We also have ongoing initiatives to improve our toy regulations, including dangers posed by small, powerful magnets; to address infant bath seats, potentially to regulate them; to improve our already world-leading regulations for cribs, cradles, and bassinets; and to review potential standards for ski helmets. Most of all, we are looking forward to the passage of the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and to the changes the legislation will bring to product safety in Canada. We are hopeful that our focus will soon turn to implementation of that legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, our record in dealing with toxic substances in products is as a leader in the world market. The regulations that will be in force by December 8 will be rolled out in the next six months. Again, I am proud to say that our country is taking a leadership role in getting unsafe products off the market.

I hope the Liberal senators will support Bill C-36 in the Senate this week and will pass it so we have modern legislation to further protect Canadians.

Health

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, lead is toxic, even in small amounts. Our regulations will be amended to reduce the level of lead on surfaces, in paint, in children's toys and in other artists material, such as paint brushes and pencils. This regulation will be among the strictest in the world. As a mother, I am very pleased with this change in the regulations as young children, who tend to put things in their mouth, will be further protected.

Our Bill C-36, which is currently before the Senate, would help with the enforcement of this change.

Product Safety

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the colour of the unelected senators' tie, it is whether they will respect the will of the House.

The protection of our children should be paramount to the government. Parents have a right to know that the products they are giving their children are safe and toxin free. This is why the government needs to ensure that Bill C-36 is passed before Christmas.

Will the government show some leadership and tell its unelected bagmen in the Senate to adopt this important legislation for the safety of our children?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should have confidence in the consumer products that they buy and the best way to do that and to ensure that countries and their importers comply is to pass our Canadian consumer product safety bill, Bill C-36. We are eagerly awaiting the passage of the bill in the Senate and we hope this time around the Liberal senators will not hold it up.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, across North America today marks Black Friday, the beginning of the holiday shopping season. Bill C-36, Canada's updated product safety legislation, passed by the House with all-party support, is being held hostage in the Senate for a second time in the past 14 months. Canadians need up to date product safety legislation now. Our children should not be opening toys this Christmas laced with cadmium.

Will the Senate again be obstructionist and act in contravention of the House, or will it respect the will of the House and pass Bill C-36 before the holidays?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

No, but I had another suggestion. Because of the ninth meeting on the draft report, we have an open meeting now. We agreed on an agenda before. Unfortunately, we used up three meetings on Bill C-36. I believe it was healthy living that we had to move forward.

Would it give the officials enough time if we could continue our study on healthy living? I don't think we would like to lose a meeting. We could give you enough time to get back on track with that important study. I would recommend that we put one in on the seventh.

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.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We had some discussion last time around about clause 15, and we want to make it clear that the government is serious about protecting the privacy of individuals as well as the health and safety of Canadians. As we discussed last time, the release of personal information under Bill C-36 would be very rare and would be limited to a person or a government whose responsibilities are to protect human health and safety. We do have a letter from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which was tabled here. They're comfortable with the regime. We have also heard from the Department of Justice officials that the Privacy Act would continue to apply along with clause 15 of Bill C-36.

In an effort to alleviate any remaining concerns opposition members may have with the provision to disclose personal information in Bill C-36, we are proposing that clause 15 be amended to clarify that clause 15 of Bill C-36 does not affect the provisions of the Privacy Act.

So I'd like to introduce the amendment, Madam Chair. I'd like to propose that Bill C-36 in clause 15 be amended by replacing line 12 on page 9 with the following:

15.(1) The Minister may disclose personal

and then add, after line 19 on page 9 the following:

(2) For greater certainty, nothing in this section affects the provisions of the Privacy Act.

That is the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 16 to 37 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the health committee.

Today on our agenda we have the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36, so we'll get right on that. I think there has been a lot of discussion among all parties, and I think we're going to be able to move through it quickly due to all the meetings that have taken place prior to our committee meeting today.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 7, 2010, we are considering Bill C-36, an act respecting the safety of consumer products.

We have as our witnesses, from Health Canada, Athana Mentzelopoulos, director general, consumer product safety directorate; Robert Ianiro, director, consumer product safety directorate; and Diane Labelle, general counsel of the legal services unit. They're here today to answer any questions we might have.

We will start clause-by-clause consideration. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 is postponed, and we will start with clause 2. Everybody is very familiar with this bill, and there are no amendments until clause 15, so I'm asking the committee, shall clauses 2 to 14 inclusive carry?

(Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive agreed to)

Thank you. We will now go to clause 15.

Dr. Carrie.

(On clause 15--Personal information)

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'm glad to hear that. Around the table today we've heard that Hallowe'en is coming up, and my colleague.... I also have an eight-year-old, and we're out shopping for the different toys. A lot of Canadians will be doing that this season. I think it is important that we do what we can to get this bill put forward.

I have one more question, for the Standards Council of Canada. In your view, will the new provisions in Bill C-36, such as the ability for the minister to request test reports to verify compliance, result in a safer marketplace for consumers?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Are there any other comments?

I also have a question for Safe Kids Canada. First of all, I want to thank you for all the input you've had with our committee in the past.

I was wondering to what extent consumer products pose a risk of injury to children. In your view, how will Bill C-36 improve children's safety?

[Michel Arnold]

Dr. Bose may perhaps be able to supplement what I'll tell you first of all. The danger of becoming what you so rightly call a dumping country is great because our neighbours have passed harsher statutes and regulations than ours. I hope the possibility of using monetary penalties under Bill C-36 will discourage delinquent companies. So I believe we have tools here that will prevent us from being exposed to this danger of becoming a dumping country.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Unfortunately, our country has been referred to as a dumping ground for unsafe consumer products. From your experience, would you say that this is correct, and in your opinion, do you believe that Bill C-36 will eliminate that?

[Michel Arnold]

We recommended this kind of national recall registry when the other bills were studied. Our understanding of Bill C-36 leads us to believe that it may not be possible to have a national registry as we were requesting, but that it will be possible to have a tool that will enable consumers to obtain information. I would say that what is even more important is that Bill C-36 gives the minister the authority to order recalls. That's really something we are calling for. In our view, that's a really important aspect of this bill.

However, to answer your question honestly, we would have to see whether this bill doesn't afford the opportunity to establish the registry that we suggested.

[John Walter, Executive Director, Standards Council of Canada]

Good afternoon, and thank you very much.

I am the executive director of the Standards Council of Canada. As a former vice-president of the Canadian Standards Association and CEO of the Technical Standards & Safety Authority of Ontario, I have been involved with standards and product safety for much of my professional career. Over the years there has been a steady increase in product recalls in Canada, from 32 in 2006 to over 250 today.

As Canada's national accreditation body, the Standards Council of Canada accredits standards development organizations and certification bodies, as well as products and services inspections and testing organizations, and we approve national standards of Canada. The Standards Council of Canada and those of our stakeholders who were consulted on Bill C-36 fully support and endorse this new act.

In terms of the current standardization landscape in Canada as it relates to consumer product safety, it is worth noting that the required networks of standards, legislation, and conformity assessment experts to ensure the safety and performance of consumer products is highly complex. Yet standardization is the most effective instrument to advance public policy objectives in this regard.

At the international level, the Standards Council is Canada's member body to the International Organization for Standardization, ISO, and to a number of international accreditation forums. The importance of this topic is recognized in Europe, Australia, and the U.S., which are all moving in similar directions, and Canada must ensure we have appropriate linkages.

Let me turn my attention to how standardization will support some of the key provisions of this bill. The prohibitions in clauses 5 to 11 will require standardization to help instill important guidelines for product manufacturers. The corrective measures provision in the act refers to recalls and allows for quicker government responses to address an emerging health or safety issue. And certainly with industry obligations, responsible manufacturers and distributors looking to promote a sense of accountability can rely on standards to clearly highlight what guidelines need to be followed.

In closing, let me reiterate that if the bill is passed, it will provide some of the necessary underpinnings for strengthening consumer product safety in Canada. I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today, and I would like to assure the Government of Canada that you can count on the support of the Standards Council and our network of standardization experts as we strive toward a safer marketplace for consumers.

Thank you.

[Pamela Fuselli, Executive Director, Safe Kids Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and share Safe Kids Canada's views on the importance of passing Bill C-36, the consumer product safety act.

Safe Kids Canada is a national leader in preventable injuries. We work to advance the safety and reduce the burden of injury to Canadian children and youth. Our goal is to reduce unintentional injuries, which is the leading cause of death, and we welcome the opportunity to share with this committee our opinion that the revised and modernized system for consumer product safety is needed to safeguard the health of all Canadians, including some of its most vulnerable members—our children.

The measures contained in Bill C-36 update the current consumer product safety legislation and are designed to provide the government with a proactive and efficient means for responding to dangers posed by consumer products. The injuries inflicted due to unsafe products are preventable. They constitute a direct drain on the resources of our overburdened health care system and an indirect burden as a result of time lost in school and work.

Safe Kids Canada acknowledges that the consumer product landscape is complex and global. More and more products are now available on the market. Bill C-36 would close gaps in the current legislation to put Canada on par with our international partners.

The data on injury prevention and child health is revealing. Survey results have demonstrated that the vast majority of Canadians believe that if a product is available for sale on the market, it is safe and has been tested for safety. We know this is not necessarily the case.

Injuries to children from the use of consumer products are common, frequently serious, and sometimes fatal. According to CHIRPP, the Canadian hospital injury reporting and prevention program, which collects information on the emergency departments of 15 hospitals across Canada every year, over 14,000 pediatric emergency room visits are as a result of children under the age of 10 who have been injured by consumer products found in or around the home.

While some argue that consumer products have a low-risk profile, the potential health consequences from a dangerous product can be significant, affecting the individuals, their families, and their communities.

Parental concern, supervision, and vigilance are needed to protect children. Canadian parents deserve to be aided as much as possible in this by their government by the institution of a robust consumer product safety system.

Several examples demonstrate some of the limitations of Canada's current regulatory system. In 2006 Health Canada established a board of review in response to a request to rescind the ban on baby walkers. Safe Kids Canada and the injury prevention community presented the evidence and supported a ban to the board, and we were relieved in 2007 when the decision to uphold the ban, after reviewing the board's finding, was announced.

While this was a good outcome, the process was resource-intensive for both the federal government and the key non-profit and health sectors participating. The onus needs to be reversed. Producers, distributors, retailers, and standard developers should have the responsibility to build safety into the design of products before they reach the market and to take immediate corrective action when risks are identified with the items for sale.

Recent recall notices for such products as strollers and cribs have demonstrated that we continue to be reliant on the U.S. for notification about hazardous products on the market.

Bill C-36 is a positive step towards a proactive consumer product safety system in Canada because it includes three main pillars: active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response. These three pillars comprise the crux of Bill C-36 and ensure it will achieve its goal of safeguarding the health and safety of Canadians.

[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.

[Robert Simonds, President, Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm the fire chief in Saint John, New Brunswick. I am appearing before you today in my capacity as the president of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, a national organization representing 1,000 fire chiefs located in every province and territory.

CAFC estimates there are almost 3,500 departments in Canada; of these, 91% are volunteer departments. Of the 108,000 total firefighting personnel in Canada, almost 79% are volunteers.

A significant percentage of responses of every fire department have important consumer product safety implications. Stove-top fires, electrical fires or electrocutions, accidental poisoning and 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 of the increasing use of chemical compositions in residential furnishings and in clothing.

We support the CCPSA because it will better protect Canadians from unsafe consumer products. There are several provisions that we regard as particularly beneficial. They include the ability to recall dangerous products, as this will allow the government to respond rapidly when the need arises to address unsafe consumer products; the provisions for the mandatory reporting of incidents, as these reports will be a key source of information about consumer products that are defective or have caused serious incidents or near misses, including fire-related incidents; the ability of the minister to request that manufacturers or importers submit test results to demonstrate that their products are safe; and the prohibition against false or misleading labelling of consumer products, which gives consumers the inaccurate belief that the products they purchase and use are safe.

We have seen a number of examples of counterfeited certified marks for consumer products such as electrical cords and light bulbs. They were falsely labelled as being compliant with Canadian requirements. Bill C-36 would make this an offence.

We ask the standing committee to send this bill back to the House unamended so that it can move quickly to third reading. It was in April 2008 that Bill C-52 was initially introduced. Since then, more than two years of improved product safety protection has been lost, despite all-party support in the House for the bill, for which all of you are to be congratulated.

Consumer product safety problems fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable elements of Canadian society: the young, the disabled, and seniors. That all Canadians, particularly those most at risk, are not protected by the best possible law is difficult for the Canadian fire service to accept. We hope that all MPs and senators will agree that Bill C-36 must become law prior to the Christmas break.

Thank you for your attention to my presentation. I look forward to taking part in the question-and-answer portion of this session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, Ms. Davidson. I think our time is up now.

Minister, I just want to thank you so much for coming and for taking time out of your very busy schedule to present Bill C-36. It's one we've been waiting for and are anxious to get through Parliament to become law in our country. I thank you for that.

Committee members, we're going to suspend for five minutes, and then we will come back.

I also want to thank Mr. Glover and Ms. Mentzelopoulos. I can't say your name, but I thank you for coming today.

We will suspend for five minutes. Thank you.

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

Both you and Mr. Glover have referred to consultation with stakeholders and changes that will be coming forward with this new bill, as far as industry requirements are concerned. Could you tell me a bit about how you engaged the stakeholders and if there were concerns expressed about the new things that are going to be included in Bill C-36? Are there any concerns about the cost to industry or the cost of implementation?

[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?

[Paul Glover]

Madam Chair, if I may, I would complement the minister's response.

One of the things I would say that is fundamentally different between the legislation proposed before you and the current HPA is that the current Hazardous Products Act, while it's served us well, is reactive and the onus is on government to find, test, prove the product is unsafe, and then develop a regulation to control that. What we're seeing with other countries, and in Bill C-36, is a shift so the onus is on industry to make sure that the products they sell they know are safe. Then we can ask them for their test results rather than the government having to do its own testing. So it's a shift in onus and it moves from being reactive to proactive to provide for better safety for Canadians and their families.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much. You know, Minister, that a government can walk and chew gum at the same time. However, I understand the problem with the Senate and I entirely agree with you. That's one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish it.

Let's change the subject, Minister. With regard to Bill C-36, I have certain questions about the minister's discretionary authority. I would simply like you to explain to me how a recall might be done and how you will determine that a product is hazardous. Also, what limits will you set for yourselves for recalling one product rather than another?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, if you say I'm straying off topic by providing background to the bill, I don't see what the economic crisis has to do with it. The economic crisis is unrelated to the passage of a bill; at least that's what I think. Nevertheless, four years elapsed between the tabling of the Auditor General's report and the start of the debate on second reading of Bill C-36.

I have to wonder, Minister. I see that all the parties want to move as quickly as possible. However, we see that there has been no concrete action on the government side. I repeat, in June 2010, when Bill C-36 was introduced, you could have sought unanimous consent. The committee had already worked on it; we had been working on it for a long time. Between the end of April and June 2009, we had five meetings on Bill C-36, and the committee was unanimous; there was consent by all parties. When I'm told that this is important, that we have to move quickly...

We saw what happened with cadmium, for example. If the bill had already been passed, we could have avoided problems last year. So you can't tell me that you're taking this seriously and that you want to take all possible steps. We can see that's not the case. Not all steps have been taken, and, no, you haven't been as quick as you could have been.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

With all due respect, Monsieur Dufour, can we get to Bill C-36?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you very much for coming.

Minister, this bill obviously has a very long history within this committee and in the Senate as well.

Some of the witnesses who had come forward--in particular, Option consommateurs, had recommended a national recall registry to put together a list that would actually identify the products that are being recalled with information to be able to help consumers.

I know even talking to my constituents in Brampton—Springdale that one day a crib is being recalled; another day a piece of jewellery is being recalled; food is being recalled. The list goes on and on. This particular bill really didn't address the recall register.

Would you be able to provide some information as to why Health Canada didn't incorporate a recall registry into Bill C-36? And do you think such a thing would be necessary to help Canadians when we are having products recalled?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

No. We are studying Bill C-36 today. It has to be on that topic.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Currently, in order to monitor the situation, as I stated in my opening remarks, that could take up to two years with the hazardous products legislation that we have. It's so outdated that we are not able to respond. The only thing we can do to protect the health and safety of Canadians is issue advisories. That's the authority we have.

A lot has changed in 40 years. In Canada we are trading more products and so on. It's going to take a long time to respond with the current legislation. Under Bill C-36, there would be mandatory reporting mechanisms in place. So if there were incidents of that nature, consumers as well as industry would have an obligation to report them, so we would have a better picture across the country of the incidents we would be seeing.

To date we have no systems of that nature. In Canada we find out about unsafe products, whether they be cribs or strollers, from the United States.

In my view, it's very embarrassing for Canada as a country that we have such outdated legislation that we rely on a different country to provide the information to us as to what is happening in Canada. Under the United States legislation there is a mandatory requirement for products being sold, and this is why it's so important.

[Paul Glover]

The short answer to that question is no, we're not seeing children getting sick. And there are two reasons for that. The first is that we don't have a provision for mandatory reporting in Bill C-36, so if there are incidents, there isn't a requirement for those to be disclosed to us, as a government, so that we could begin proactively to take action.

The second reason is our cyclical enforcement. We were actually worried about lead, and we were being very aggressive in our testing for lead, and we thought it would be prudent...because we were getting some intelligence from other international bodies that lead was being replaced by cadmium. So we're picking this up very early in its cycle. Two years ago we did not find cadmium present in children's jewellery. It's only in the last year that we've begun to see this. What we're seeing is a move away from the presence of lead to the presence of cadmium.

We're trying to address this issue before children get sick.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for inviting me back to this committee today to discuss Bill C-36, the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

This is the second time this bill has been before this committee, and I know that my colleagues in this room are all very familiar with the details of the bill. I hope I can count on the support of all parties to get the legislation passed as quickly as possible.

We know that the previous bill received unanimous support in the House. I hope your support of this bill will continue, followed by quick approval in the Senate. In my view, Canadians should not have to wait.

Since the bill was last before the committee, we've had the opportunity to include details that offer more clarification to certain sections of the legislation. For example, the definition of “storage” has been added to the proposed legislation. These changes do not compromise the spirit of the bill, nor do they lower the level of protection it would provide to Canadians.

In reviewing the transcripts from your meetings on Tuesday, I noted some time was spent on the subject of personal information. Our government is committed to the protection of personal information, and I want to spend a few minutes on this subject as a follow-up to the Tuesday discussions.

Concerns were raised that Bill C-36 gives more protection to business information than to personal information. This is not the case. Bill C-36 sets out the limited criteria under which personal information could be shared. In addition, the government respects the provisions of the Privacy Act. The act sets out very clear limits on the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. To make sure that the protections of the proposed act are appropriate, officials from my department have met proactively with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. After a full review of the bill, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner confirmed in writing that the protections for personal information in the proposed act are appropriate and cause no concern. I would be happy to table the correspondence I received from her office with this committee.

On Tuesday this committee discussed an amendment that was put forward in the Senate during consideration of the predecessor of Bill C-36. Implementing this amendment would result in cases of my department having to collect more personal information than necessary in order to do our work. As a result, legal obligations may be created that the department is unable to meet. I am confident that we have taken all the necessary precautions to protect personal information and to ensure that only those details that are relevant to the nature of the incident or the danger the product poses to health and safety need be collected.

This week I participated in a press conference to draw attention to a serious concern about the use of cadmium, a highly toxic product in toys and children's jewellery. It is being used in place of lead, the product once commonly used in such trinkets. Given that young children tend to put things in their mouths, this type of exposure to cadmium can cause vomiting, diarrhea, and over time can cause liver damage, but our appeal was limited to asking industry to voluntarily take action to stop using cadmium. This is a good example of why we need to pass this important piece of legislation.

Right now the Hazardous Products Act is used to regulate consumer products. The act applies to consumer products that are specifically prohibited or regulated by the act. This limits our ability to act, because most products on the market are unregulated. The 40-year-old legislation lacks the necessary tools to address today's challenges and doesn't permit us to be on the same footing with our trading partners. It must be replaced by modernized authorities to better address the potential consumer product hazards that are brought to our attention on a daily basis.

Using the cadmium example, if Bill C-36 had already been passed, the general prohibitions could have been used to proactively respond to this issue. I compare this to our present legislation, where if voluntary action were not possible, it could have taken up to two years to change the regulations. While the United States and the European Union have the ability to order the recall of such products, in Canada we are generally limited to negotiating and gaining cooperation from companies before products are pulled from store shelves on a voluntary basis.

We know that most industry players value their reputation. We also know and respect the investments they have made in safety and customer service. We want to support those in industry who value their reputation on safety and who make it a priority to ensure their customers have the information they need to make the right product choices. But in those few cases where it falls to government to take action to protect consumers, Bill C-36 would give us the authority to do so.

Over the last year, we have spoken to many parents, stakeholders, and industry representatives, and have met with colleagues from foreign governments. We have talked about the need to respond quickly and about our shared concern for the safety of consumer products—particularly in the case of children. We also discussed our shared goal of building an improved product safety regime that is targeted, efficient, and effective. In addition, we have also worked on improving our international partnerships.

Madam Chair, I believe we should take a fair, transparent, and comprehensive approach to product safety. The issue fundamentally is one of safety. It is also an issue of consumer expectation. I would like to thank the members of this committee for making this bill a priority and ensuring that it gets the attention it needs to quickly proceed to the report stage and third reading in the House. I sincerely hope you will agree it is time we passed this important piece of legislation into law.

I would also like to take the opportunity, before we go into questions, to thank our stakeholder groups here today for their ongoing support of this bill: Robert Simonds, president of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs; Michel Arnold, executive director, and Anu Bose from Options Consommateurs; Pamela Fuselli, executive director of Safe Kids Canada; and John Walter, executive director of the Standards Council of Canada.

Many other stakeholder groups have also provided support for this bill, such as the Consumers' Association of Canada, Environmental Defence, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, and the Canadian Pediatric Society. They are not speaking here today, but I would like to extend my thanks to them as well.

I welcome questions from the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I ask all members of the committee to please be seated so we can begin.

We want to welcome our minister, Leona Aglukkaq, to the committee this morning. We're just delighted that she could join us. In our first hour the minister will make her presentation. Then we'll go into two rounds of questions.

As you remember, when a minister is present the rounds are different. The Liberals will have 15 minutes, the Bloc 10, the NDP 10, and the Conservatives 10, for questions and answers during that time.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 7, 2010, today we will be examining Bill C-36, an act respecting the safety of consumer products.

Again I welcome you, Minister. We're very excited about your being here today, and look forward to your presentation.

Thank you.

[Robert Ianiro]

Exactly. There are a couple of elements. The first thing is—we didn't raise this, and it didn't come up in any of the questions—that we have new requirements in Bill C-36 that don't currently exist under the Hazardous Products Act. These relate to false and misleading claims relating to certification or health and safety claims. If it is indicated that something meets standards of CSA, the Canadian Standards Association for electrical safety...those types of things would be prohibited. So there are some new labelling and misleading and false claim requirements under the bill.

Speaking specifically to what we would do if we got that complaint, clearly we would need to identify whether it falls within the scope of the act. Clearly in this case, a frying pan does; it is an unregulated product. If it contained a substance of concern and we did a risk assessment and determined that there was an exposure to that substance and that therefore potentially it created a danger to human health or safety, we would have the ability.

It's an interesting example, because it's an unregulated product. Currently, under the HPA it would be very similar and analogous to the cadmium example we've used. Going forward, under Bill C-36, if there is a substance of concern that is found in the consumer product and there is exposure to that substance, then we would have the ability and the authority to take action.

The exposure is critical, because you could have a substance in a product that isn't accessible: there is no exposure; it isn't available. And it's only through that exposure that there actually could be a health concern.

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

So in this particular case, if someone brought this forward, you would assess it against the substance. You would determine whether Bill C-36 was....

[Robert Ianiro]

I'll try that one.

The labelling you're referring to, I would suspect, not having all the details, is reminiscent of labelling that is in place under Proposition 65 in the state of California, whereby you're required to label pretty much any product that contains any substance that is a known carcinogen, mutagen, or reprotox.

What I find a bit intriguing and perhaps bizarre in this situation is that it's about potentially killing birds. All I could suggest is that I think it's stemming from overheating frying pans. There is a certain chemical in the frying pans, which is often what's called PFOS. I'm not even going to try to give you what that stands for, but I'm pretty sure it's perfluorinated octanal sulfonate. It is something that's used in non-stick. If you put your frying pan on a stove for extended periods of time at high heat, it will release these fumes, and they could potentially kill birds.

I think we would probably be a bit more concerned if it were.... This is not to suggest that I'm not a bird lover, but we obviously would be more concerned with human health, with respect to Bill C-36, which is what we're here to speak to you about.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

I have just one follow-up very quickly. Some of the—I hate to say “negative”—people are concerned with this bill and basically don't want it to be seen that we're creating a dragnet where anything can be considered a potential danger—like we have to put a big warning sign on scissors that you shouldn't run with them. Anything is possible, but what is practicable?

Is the definition “danger to health and human safety” in Bill C-36 too broad?

[Athana Mentzelopoulos]

Madam Chair, the changes that we've made between Bill C-6 and Bill C-36 really speak to some of the concerns that were expressed around inspectors' powers. For example, there's concern that an inspector might be able to enter a home for the purposes of looking at goods that were stored for personal use. It's very clear now that the actions for an inspector are confined, first of all, to the legislation, and that goods stored for personal use, for example, are outside of the realm of what the inspectors could look at.

In addition, there was some concern about what the liability might be for passing over private property. We've addressed that as well.

So really, we looked at the totality of the concerns. They were very much oriented around inspectors' powers. We believe that we've addressed them through the amendments we've made.

Again, in terms of each specific amendment, I think we would have to come back with the details of each of them, if that were what was requested.

[Athana Mentzelopoulos]

I'm not sure how helpful we can be in the specific details. We may want to revisit it with information about each of the amendments.

In general, the concerns that were voiced at the Senate were very much related to inspectors' powers. The changes made between Bill C-6 and Bill C-36 were really to address some of the issues—for example, a concern that inspectors might have the authority to—

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you very much for coming before the committee today. I'm going to ask a question probably addressing some of the concerns that my colleagues Mr. Dosanjh and Dr. Carrie have addressed in regard to the amendments and the whole issue surrounding privacy.

In consultation and discussion with some of the stakeholders—and there's a long history with the bill from Bill C-6 to Bill C-36—you guys have incorporated all of the amendments that the House had suggested. The amendments that were put forward by the Senate committee, which were defeated, have also been incorporated. The amendments by both of the senators that were passed by them at their particular standing committee have not been incorporated.

Can you give light to the committee, from what you know, on why those particular amendments by both Senator Furey and Senator Banks were not incorporated?

Then in a response to Mr. Dosanjh, Diane mentioned that they could be considered. Perhaps you could shed light for the committee and come at it from a different perspective.

[Diane Labelle]

I will address the first part of your question with respect to the Privacy Act and why, in our view, it's not necessary to repeat the provisions in Bill C-36.

The Privacy Act is a quasi-constitutional document. In other words, it prevails over any other statute unless there are express provisions in the legislation provided for by Parliament that set aside the Privacy Act. This is not what clause 15 does. Clause 15 in actuality is there to respect some of the requirements under the Privacy Act. It provides, under section 8 of the Privacy Act, that if there is going to be disclosure, it has to be under lawful authority, and that's what clause 15 does. It's also in a very constrained manner. It's only with respect to information that needs to be shared with others exercising a health and safety regulatory function, such as that of Health Canada.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In its study of Bill C-36 in May 2009, this committee heard from Options consommateurs that there is a need for a national recall register, maybe something like the inclusion of a public complaints or a reporting database that can be updated. I think a good example of that is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which has its food recall list up on the Internet. Is that something you would be willing to consider? Have you looked at it? Is there anything like that in this bill?

[Robert Ianiro]

There are a couple of threads to that question, first and foremost with regard to the complementarity between health and safety in Bill C-36 and environmental legislation. We're dealing with health and safety relating to consumer products. CEPA really is the statute in place to deal with environmental concerns. They do have the ability to deal with both environmental and health issues if a substance is deemed to be toxic under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA. The reason we are making reference in the preamble and in other places in the bill, such as clause 16, is for the simple fact that through our work and through the work of other departments, you will often come across information or situations that should or could lead to actions under other statutes.

For example, Ms. Mentzelopoulos described the bisphenol A prohibition that was put under the Hazardous Products Act and will be carried over to Bill C-36. One of the issues that came up through our analysis was whether there were any concerns to the environment and potential release of bisphenol A into groundwater or through the effluent out of manufacturing. Just this past weekend, Environment Canada announced some action in that area. So that's a concrete example of why we're making reference to the environment and giving ourselves a certain degree of flexibility, so that there could be sharing of that type of information to not only better protect the health and safety of Canadians but the environment, upon which, of course, our very life depends.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Once again, according to Bill C-36, it will of course be up to the minister to respond in the event of such a recall.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing today. I also thank Ms. Davidson for her question. The Bloc Québécois has the same concerns regarding the number of inspectors. Since she is a member of the government party, I would encourage her to put some pressure on her government to ensure that we have a sufficient number of inspectors to properly implement Bill C-36.

I would have a few brief questions. First, the preamble of the bill contains what appears to be a definition of the precautionary principle. It read 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;

In your view, what was the government's intention behind that statement?

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

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for being here with us this morning.

I know this is a bill that everybody around the table is anxious to see move forward.

In your opening remarks you commented that there are new powers in Bill C-36 requiring manufacturers and importers, upon request by the minister, to provide safety test and study results for their products.

Now that the minister has discretionary powers and can ask for safety testing and so on, what would trigger that request, to begin with, and then how would the process work after it has been triggered? What will the minister make her decision on to determine whether or not there is a danger?

[Diane Labelle]

The procedural safeguards that are implied in that question are dealt with in the legislation and in the legal system.

Officials, including the Minister of Health, who exercise powers granted to them in a statute enacted by Parliament--and in this case it would be Bill C-36--are compelled by law to act reasonably. That is to say, they must make decisions with impartiality and fairness. Fairness requires them to act reasonably and to afford procedural protection to the person who is affected by their decision. Officials, including the minister, cannot act in an arbitrary manner. And as I've mentioned, under Bill C-36 this protection is afforded to a person requesting a review of an order.

I would like to add that the legal requirements--the principles of administrative law--do not require that every appeal or review mechanism be structured like courts or quasi-judicial tribunals in order to ensure procedural fairness. And while the minister designates the review officer, once the officer is designated he or she makes the decision and cannot be dictated to, although they can take into account guidelines and departmental policies in making a decision.

[Robert Ianiro]

In regard to the one item relating to tobacco and tobacco products that is covered in the statute, and this is in subclause 4(2), which discusses the ignition propensity, I just wanted you to perhaps clarify that.

The Tobacco Act covers items relating to health, and it was in fact the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations that has requested that the department look at and deal with the safety aspects relating to tobacco and tobacco products. So when I referred to safety, it would include things like ignition propensity, which are often referred to as fire-safe cigarettes. This is deemed to be a safety issue and not a health issue and therefore outside the scope of the act.

The standing joint committee has requested that those regulations currently enacted under the Tobacco Act be moved under the Hazardous Products Act. In fact we are just carrying over that request to Bill C-36 so that we will have the ability to deal with the one aspect in response to the standing joint committee and to continue to have legally binding requirements for fire-safe cigarettes in Canada.

[Robert Ianiro]

The only other point I'd like to add is that the orders that could be issued for corrective action could also include specific instructions on the types of documentation and information that needs to be provided to Health Canada to do exactly what you're suggesting, which is the effectiveness of the recall. So under Bill C-36 we would have the ability to do that and we would be leveraging information that Mrs. Mentzelopoulos discussed under the document retention provision.

[Athana Mentzelopoulos]

A lot of how we improve the recovery rate will come from effective procedures. But a really important provision in Bill C-36 is through document retention. So should the bill pass, industry is required to retain one level up and one level down the supply chain of documents. That is specifically designed to facilitate the recovery of recalled items, to know where they have been distributed, where they have come from, and to be able to track them down. That's in addition to the procedural approach of recall effectiveness to follow up in the marketplace to ensure that materials and products have been removed.

Is there something you want to add, Robert?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

So will Bill C-36 then improve the recovery rate? I know we're talking about only 10% to 15% of recalled products making it in right now. Especially if we want to get all of this cadmium off the market, will this look at ways of improving the recovery rate?

[Diane Labelle]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thibeault, for the question.

The issue that arose particularly in the Senate centred around the use of inspectors' powers. At the time the explanation and the letter that was tabled with the chair of the committee of the Senate that was hearing the bill confirmed that the Minister of Justice scrutinizes every bill for consistency with the charter, and no such inconsistencies were reported.

The concern appears to be the fact that inspectors, having reasonable grounds to believe that a regulated activity is taking place in a building or a conveyance, may enter to verify compliance or prevent non-compliance solely for the purpose of administering the act, and it seems that the concern that was expressed was why weren't inspectors required to have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was created and that a judicial warrant was necessary. And in fact the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the necessity for administrative regimes to verify compliance. That is the type of regime that is set up in Bill C-36, and it goes only to the predominant purpose of ensuring compliance with the statutes and the regulations.

The inspector powers in no way engage an individual's penal responsibility. If it were a matter for a criminal investigation, then yes, either an inspector or a law officer would require a judicial warrant from the court under the criminal court, but that is not what we're talking about in Bill C-36.

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

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

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

Very well, I thank you for those points of clarification.

I am sure you know that when the government tabled Bill C-52, which is the previous version of Bill C-36, a number of consumers were concerned that the law could apply to natural health products. An addition, clarification or change was brought. In subsection 4(3), which deals with the application, the following is clearly stated:

4.(3) 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.

Can you tell me why, in this case, people today are still concerned by the fact that Bill C-36, the latest version of the act respecting the safety of consumer products, might affect natural health products?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here with us this morning as part of our first meeting on Bill C-36. Of course, this is not the first meeting that our committee has had regarding the bill because, as you know, we had already studied it once before, but unfortunately, Parliament was prorogued. We therefore have to start all the work over again.

There is the issue of the mail and e-mails that each and every one of us here has received in our offices since our last meeting on the topic, and which deal more particularly with the bill's constitutionality. I imagine that you have also received such comments and concerns.

Can you tell us whether you examined that specific aspect of the bill and whether or not you believe that the bill is constitutionally acceptable?

[Athana Mentzelopoulos]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss Bill C-36, the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

As you know, the Minister of Health introduced this latest version of the legislation in June of this year. Each generation of this bill has been an improvement over the last and reflects the ongoing approach that we take to consumer product safety; that is, we are always looking for the most effective and efficient ways to maintain consumer safety while at the same time ensuring a free flow of goods.

The free flow of goods is related to the post-market regime for consumer safety in Canada. The post-market regime is not something we are proposing to change with this bill. We do not now propose, nor would we propose, that industry be required to seek certification from or otherwise notify the government when new products are introduced for sale in Canada. However, while the vast majority of consumer products are unregulated in this country, we do have a number of regulations and prohibitions in place for consumer products, and we work to promote compliance. Bill C-36 would provide an important authority in this regard: a general prohibition against products that pose an unreasonable danger to consumers.

Today the Hazardous Products Act is our legislative basis for consumer safety in Canada. It establishes what is essentially a permissive regime, where a product is allowed in Canada unless it is specifically regulated or prohibited. The general prohibition addresses those products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety.

We expect that industry is already using appropriate standards and risk assessment methods in its evaluation of the safety of its consumer products before being placed on the market.

The general prohibition also supports one of the three key areas that we focus on for improvement in consumer product safety, and that is active prevention.

Modernized authorities developed to correspond to our globalized and post-market consumer product environment will assist us in preventing product safety problems before they arise and before significant risk can develop.

In addition to active prevention, we are focused on targeted oversight and rapid response as key areas for improvement in our consumer safety regime. Bill C-36 has new powers requiring manufacturers and importers, upon request by the minister, to provide safety test and study results for their products for verification by Health Canada. This supports targeted oversight while keeping the accountability for safe products with industry.

In addition to record-keeping, the requirement for mandatory reporting of product incidents will help us to respond rapidly when problems develop. Our major trading partners, the United States and the European Union, have already modernized their consumer safety legislation. Bill C-36 would bring Canada in line with them on reporting of incidents and recalls.

While the legislation would modernize a very dated system for consumer safety in Canada, we expect to continue to see a very robust voluntary approach to recall by industry. That has also been the experience in the United States.

We know that the vast majority of industry in Canada acts responsibly and we know they value their reputation. Unfortunately, there are still cases where industry either seeks to dismiss a risk or to avoid accountability. In those cases, government requires the tools to take action to protect consumers. Bill C-36 would give us the authority to do so.

Our partners have been generous. The United States in particular, owing to the similarities in our industry, continues to help us when it is taking action as a result of the mandatory reporting system and corrective action systems it has in place now.

Frequently, recalls initiated in the U.S. are either simultaneous in Canada or are closely timed. Information from the U.S. has helped us in Canada so that we are able to determine the extent, if any, of recalled products that might be present here. We thank our neighbours for this support and we hope to be more equal partners in consumer safety as a result of this legislation.

Like other elements of the Hazardous Products Act, the current schedule of fines and penalties can lead to the impression that the repercussions of product safety lapses are simply a cost of doing business. For example, the maximum fine under the HPA is now set at $1 million. Bill C-36 would raise that to $5 million for some offences or more for offences committed knowingly or recklessly.

The key elements of Bill C-36 I know are familiar to many of you on this committee, but there are some important improvements. Specifically, we have made six changes to the legislation since it was before you last.

The first change is a change to authorities for recall and other orders. Previously these authorities would have been assigned to an inspector. Now the minister is made expressly accountable for the authorities. This change addresses the concerns we have heard from some stakeholders that the critical and important authority of a mandatory recall should rest with senior officials.

We have also made two changes in adjusting the wording around inspectors' powers.

The definition of “storage” is now clear in the legislation and it does not apply to goods stored by individuals for their personal use. We have also removed a clause for inspectors to pass over private property so that the provision no longer includes the phrase “and they are not liable for doing so.”

The fourth change--having listened to the committee during previous hearings on this bill and on others--is an improvement to the wording on the provision for an advisory body meant to clarify what was meant by “public advice”.

Fifth, we responded to concerns on review orders, and the bill sets out a 30-day review period.

And finally, a prohibition on BPA, bisphenol A, in polycarbonate baby bottles has been added, ensuring an ongoing high level of protection for consumers.

In summary, the department believes Bill C-36 will provide the legislative foundation for active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response. The legislation offers certainty and transparency for industry. It gives consumers the information they need to make good product choices. It equips the government with new authorities that are calibrated to a global marketplace and a post-market regime. These new authorities are consistent with health and environmental legislation already in place in Canada. And this legislation would bring us into line with the level of protection provided to consumers in the United States and the European Union.

Those are my comments, Madam Chair, and we are prepared to take your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

The plan for Bill C-36 is as follows. We had said, as committee members, that when legislation came up we would take the legislation first and foremost and get it done. What we're looking at are witnesses from the department today. On Thursday the minister will join us for an hour and then we'll have witnesses on Thursday. And the following Tuesday we have additional witnesses and then we'll do a clause-by-clause. And we're hoping a week today to get the clause-by-clause completed, basically because there's been a lot of study on Bill C-36 and there are few amendments, so we as a committee have decided this is the way we want to proceed.

We will begin now with a presentation from Athana Mentzelopoulos. How do you pronounce it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the health committee.

We're very excited about our committee because we work so well together and get a lot done, and I have to commend all the committee members for that.

I would like to welcome Ruby Dhalla. I haven't had a chance to do that. It's a pleasure to have you on committee, Ruby.

Of course, Mr. Dosanjh, I welcomed you before. It's good to see you here.

And we have Glenn Thibeault. Welcome to our committee as well.

And yes, Monsieur Dufour, I never forget you. So there we go. We welcome Monsieur Dufour just on a general basis when he comes in, and we sing Happy Birthday to him on his birthday.

I'd like to welcome the other visitors we have today. From the Department of Health, we have Diane Labelle, Robert Ianiro, and Athana Mentzelopoulos.

Committee members, today we have Bill C-36 before us, and the proposed operational budget in the amount of $15,150 for the committee's study of Bill C-36, an act respecting the safety of consumer products. I put that motion forward to be adopted.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There being no questions and comments, pursuant to an order made earlier today, Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products is deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[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.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to start debate on this timely piece of legislation.

Almost every day my department has asked companies to recall unsafe products. Sometimes it takes days and even weeks. Sadly, we have fallen behind most of the modern world with the current legislation.

Bill C-36, the Canada consumer product safety act, would replace the 40-year-old, outdated legislation that puts us way behind our trading partners and other countries.

By modernizing our consumer product safety law, we are seeking to better protect the public by addressing and preventing dangers to human health or safety posed by substandard or faulty consumer products.

As my fellow members are well aware, the marketplace of 40 years ago was far different from the one we know today. Forty years ago the vast majority of products on our store shelves were likely manufactured by a few companies and were much easier to monitor. Supply chains were short and simple, and the tools available to regulators were appropriate for that time. In today's global economy, there are thousands of companies and millions of products. Supply chains are long, complicated and cross multiple borders.

Right now, part I of the Hazardous Products Act is used to regulate consumer products. Any consumer product that is not specifically prohibited or regulated can be sold according to this act.

This dated legislation lacks the necessary tools to address today's challenges, and does not permit us to be on the same footing with our trading partners. It does not allow government to respond rapidly to unregulated products or hazards, and it does not provide the ability for government to recall unsafe products when a company is not co-operating with us or is slow in doing so.

We recognize the limits of our current legislation because in recent years we have seen an increasing number of dangerous consumer products. We have listened to the concerns of consumers and parents alike. Take for example the drop-side cribs, something on which my department is consulting with the industry right now.

Over the past several months I have spoken to many parents, stakeholders and industry representatives, and I have met with my colleagues from foreign governments. We have talked about our shared concerns for the safety of children's products. We have talked about the need to respond quickly to emerging dangers from consumer products. We have discussed our shared goal of building an improved product safety regime that is targeted, efficient and effective. We have worked on improving our international partnerships.

That is why we tabled the Canada consumer product safety act, to help keep Canadians safe from dangerous consumer products. The safety and security of Canadian families is a priority for us.

The proposed act would modernize and strengthen Canada's product safety legislation. It would put Canada in step with modern times. It would also bring us into step with our major trading partners like the United States and the European Union.

I think my fellow members will agree that all Canadians deserve to benefit from a level of protection comparable to that of our American and European neighbours, and this is exactly what the Canada consumer product safety act seeks to provide.

It would give the government more effective tools to identify risks and act quickly to remove unsafe consumer products from store shelves. It would introduce a general prohibition against the manufacture, importation, advertisement or sale of any consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety. It would require companies to report all serious incidents and defects that could lead to injury or death, including near misses.

This would provide our government with the intelligence needed to assess and take action on identified risks more quickly, more strategically and more comprehensively.

Bill C-36 would give authority for the government to order mandatory recalls.

As things stand now, upon determining that a consumer product is unsafe, and I am talking about household items such as toys and cribs, we are limited in what actions we can take. While the United States and the European Union can act fast to recall such products on their own, in Canada, we are generally limited to negotiating and gaining co-operation from companies before products are pulled from store shelves on a voluntary basis.

In many cases, companies agree to a voluntary approach. Often after further testing their products, they are proactive and inform their consumers of the details. In other cases, they are informed of incidents related to their products and offer to recall the items on their own, but in cases where they do not, we are often very limited to issuing warnings and advisories to the public to alert them of the problem.

I find it completely unacceptable that companies are allowed to get away with this, and Canadians deserve better. Under the proposed Canada consumer product safety act, the government would be able to order mandatory recalls when companies fail to co-operate. Reputable producers rightly and realistically see themselves as accountable for the safety of their products. They are conscientious and rightfully aim to safeguard their reputations. We expect they would continue to act quickly and voluntarily when a safety problem is identified with their products. This legislation seeks to make all producers accountable for the safety of their products by providing the government with the necessary tools to quickly remedy safety problems.

Compliance with the legislation would be strengthened through maximum fines of up to $5 million for serious offences, or more for offences committed knowingly or recklessly. That is a big step up from the current maximum penalty of $1 million. These fines would no longer be the cost of doing business.

In the months since the bill was last before my fellow members, we have had the opportunity to reflect upon the input we have received both in parliamentary hearings and directly from stakeholders. As a result, targeted improvements have been made to the proposed legislation. I would like to stress that these changes, while important, do not compromise the spirit of the bill, nor do they lower the level of protection it would provide to Canadians.

The first is a change to authorities for recall and other orders. Previously, these authorities would have been assigned to inspectors. Now the ministry is expressly accountable for ordering product recalls and taking other measures.

We have also made two changes to the wording around inspector powers. For example, the meaning of the word “store” has been clarified by specifying that it does not apply to goods stored for personal use. For example, the myth that an inspector could go to someone's house and take a two-year-old's favourite toy from him is just not true. We have also removed a clause for inspectors to pass over property so that the provision no longer includes the phrase "and they are not liable for doing so".

The fourth change, having listened to the committee during previous hearings on this legislation and on others, is an improvement to the wording on the provisions for an advisory body that clarifies what was meant by public advice.

Fifth, we responded to concerns on the review of orders so that the bill now sets out a 30-day review period.

Sixth, a prohibition of bisphenol A in baby bottles has been added, ensuring an ongoing high level of protection for consumers.

There are many reasons why we are seeing this legislation for the third time in this House. Throughout the history of this important bill, there have been a few important constants. One constant has been the support of my government. We have always known how important it was to update our product safety legislation.

I sincerely thank the members of the House for their past support for this legislation. I would also like to thank our stakeholders who have worked tirelessly along with me. Our work with the public listening to the concerns about product safety and discussing their desire for a modernized safety regime underlines the importance of what we are doing with this bill. It also portrays the many ways it will benefit Canadians.

Another constant has been our commitment to continuous improvement. Essentially, before this bill is passed by the House and the Senate, we are working with the 40-year old legislation we currently have. Still, improvements have been made, and we are very proud of them.

We have prohibited BPA in baby bottles.

We are building on the excellent work already done to make cribs and cradles in Canada among the safest in the world. This includes our recent proposal to ban traditional drop-side cribs.

We continue to advance implementation of increasingly stringent and comprehensive limits on lead in various products.

We have finished the pre-consultation on an initiative to eliminate exposure to phthalates in chewable children's toys.

In addition, we continue to apply strategic compliance and enforcement approaches to our existing regulations and prohibitions. We are proposing that these regulations and prohibitions be transferred to Bill C-36 in such a way that there will be no gaps in protection, no time lags in the transfer, and no reduction in the existing level of protection that they provide.

With respect to Bill C-36 in particular, we have worked closely with stakeholders at every stage of development. When we have had opportunities to revisit the bill, we have seized them and worked to make better legislation. That is why we have made the important improvements that members see today.

That is why we have developed policy proposals for consultation and why we have invited comment since the summer, to make the best possible legislation for industry, for stakeholders, and for individual Canadians.

We are currently consulting on four elements of Bill C-36. We are also consulting on the provisions for mandatory reporting.

There is another constant that has driven our commitment to this legislation. That is the constant reminder that we need this legislation. It is the reminder that the Hazardous Products Act must be replaced by modernized authorities and that the potential hazards posed by consumer products surface daily and in ways that are increasingly difficult to predict.

My colleagues need only think of the recent Fisher-Price voluntary recall. Fisher-Price recalled more than 10 million products. I would not be surprised to learn that colleagues here in this chamber were affected by that recall, and if not the Fisher-Price recall, then perhaps it was one of the more than 245 products we have managed since the beginning of this year.

That brings us to another constant. That is our frequent dependence upon the United States for information that it receives through its system of mandatory reporting of consumer incidents. It is in part as a result of the intelligence it has gathered through that system that the Fisher-Price recall was developed. We have no such system in Canada, but this legislation would give us the authority to implement it.

We will always work closely with our neighbours to the south, and we will continue to develop and support close relations with our other major trading partners. I was pleased, for example, to be able to expand our memorandum of agreement with China when I travelled to Asia last month.

In this system of rapidly changing, globally modernized markets, such co-operation and coordination is essential. An international safety net is a smart use of resources.

But we must have the authorities that will allow us to be equal partners in these important relationships.

Bill C-36 proposes new powers requiring manufacturers and importers to provide safety test and study results for their products, for verification by Health Canada. This supports targeted oversight while keeping the accountability for safe products with industry.

If we look to the experience in the United States, where it has established similar legislation to what we are proposing today, we know that it is reasonable to expect that a voluntary approach will continue to be the preferred approach when responding to product safety incidents. In other words, we know that most industry players value their reputation.

We know and we respect the investments they have made in safety and consumer service. We want to support those in industry who put a premium on safety and are proactive to ensure their customers have the information they need to make the right product choices. But in those few cases where it falls to government to take action to protect consumers, Bill C-36 would give us the authority to do so.

I believe my colleagues will agree that we should take the same transparent and comprehensive approach to product safety whether we are dealing with a large multinational corporation or a home-based business. The issue fundamentally is one of fairness and it is also an issue of consumer expectation.

Today I have discussed many of the details of Bill C-36 and they all add up to three key elements: active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response. These are our goals. Canadians deserve nothing less.

This legislation offers certainty and transparency for industry. By supporting the bill, every member of the House can act to improve product safety and strengthen our ability to protect Canadians. As a mother, I can only feel comfortable knowing that our country is equipped to keep the products on our shelves safe.

I hope to count on the support of hon. members of the House for this important piece of legislation.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions from my friend, the member for Ottawa South. I do have to admit from time to time that I am called upon to respond to certain questions that are asked by the opposition. There are not as many as there used to be, thanks to the appointment of the new Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who I think is doing a fine job. The new Minister of Transport has a big challenge to tidy up the department. The only minister who has a bigger challenge to deal with is the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

On the issue of decorum, I think there has been some degree of success. I will congratulate the Liberal House Leader . He has perhaps been more successful than I have in reining in the number of interjections during question period, and I undertake to him and to the House to continue to work in that regard. I think there has been a considerable reduction in interjections. Sometimes the members of the government or members of the opposition will bring out those types of interjections, but I will commit to continue to work with him and with our colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP on reducing them. I think we have met with some success. We do have more room to grow, but I will commit to continue to work in that regard. In many respects, that was a big part of the motion the House adopted last night, the motion standing in the name of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and I see him smiling at me now.

Much work has been accomplished, but much work remains to be done in that regard.

When government orders resumes after my statement, we will call Bill C-36, the consumer product safety bill. We have an agreement to send it to committee after one speaker per party, and I will be moving the appropriate motion in a few minutes.

I should point out that if we cannot come together to try to protect children and keep them safe, we do not have any place here. I am very pleased with the consultations with all parties on that. I think they will be welcomed, particularly by Environmental Defence, which has been championing these issues for some time.

Following Bill C-36, we will resume the debate which began this morning on Bill C-47, sustaining Canada's economic recovery act. Other bills scheduled for today, if necessary, are Bill S-9, tackling auto theft and property crime, and Bill C-39, ending early release for criminals.

Tomorrow, we will continue with the business before us today.

Next week, as the member noted, is a constituency week.

When we return we will continue, if necessary, with Bill C-47. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is also on the agenda.

Thursday, October 21 shall be an allotted day, as I have told our friends in the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, with respect to Bill C-36, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, a member from each recognized party may speak for not more than 20 minutes on the second reading motion of Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, following which the said bill shall be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opened his debate by bemoaning and, I would suspect, criticizing the government for its inability to pass Bill C-36. He cites prorogation as the cause. He would no doubt know from sitting on the justice committee that there is another bill before that committee, Bill C-4. We are having a difficult time getting this bill out of committee because of the endless number of witnesses that his party and the other parties in the opposition keep supplying.

I am curious if he will guarantee swift passage of Bill S-6 out of committee and back to this House for third reading. Canadians demand that this legislation be passed.

Product Safety

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should have confidence in the consumer products they buy. That is why we reintroduced the Canada consumer products safety legislation, Bill C-36. This bill would not only provide the tools needed to act quickly and effectively to protect Canadians, but it would be good for our economy and it would put industry on an even playing field.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

What you haven't received, which you will—we'll make sure it gets to your offices—is the remaining business items from the previous session of the House of Commons.

There's Bill C-36, an act respecting the safety of consumer products. This bill has received first reading but has not been referred to the committee. The committee could potentially deal with legislation in the fall.

Regarding the study on the cancellation of the HIV vaccine manufacturing facility under the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative, a draft report has been considered by the committee, and all of the text and recommendations were adopted with amendments; however, the committee wanted to review a second draft with the changes before officially adopting the report. Possible time required would be an hour or an hour and a half meeting on this.

A letter on rare disorders was distributed to committee members but has not been discussed by the committee.

Concerning a study on the impact of microwaves on human health, we tried very hard to get that topic on the agenda. The committee has not yet decided whether they're going to report on this issue. Witnesses have been lobbying for a report. We haven't gone to that stage yet.

And the committee passed a motion in June to undertake a review of the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada.

So we have all these issues, which I would like you to come prepared for next Tuesday. We're going to put this all down on our order of business.

Are there any comments or questions?

Monsieur Malo.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, while the NDP is pleased that Bill C-36 has finally been introduced, we do have a few questions about the bill that we hope the government can answer. We do see it having a few deficiencies, for example, the lack of a comprehensive labelling system for products that contain hazardous materials. People need to know what is in the products they are using. There is no acceptable or convincing reason not to inform people of what is in a product.

There is too much discretion in some pieces of the bill. I believe that if human health is at risk Canadians should know about it. However, the government is not required to inform consumers of safety issues that have been identified. This really needs to be tightened up, hopefully through amendments at committee.

I am also left wondering about enforcement resources. The bill would require significant government performance in order to achieve the level of proactive product safety needed.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary has answers to those issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member on her return to the Health committee and I am looking forward to working with her over the next few months.

I am pleased to rise this evening to discuss the government's commitment to consumer safety and specifically to address Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

On June 9, as the member said, the Minister of Health introduced Bill C-36 and, as members opposite know, it now awaits second reading. The government has made important improvements to what was previous Bill C-6 and we are looking forward to support from our colleagues when the bill begins its progression through Parliament.

Bill C-36 fulfils a promise made by the government in our 2010 throne speech. Many Canadians believe that the consumer products they purchase every day are safe when used as directed. We know that businesses in Canada want to ensure the products they sell are safe. It has been estimated that up to one-third of Canadians have at least once bought products that were later found to be unsafe.

Each year, millions of Canadian consumers are affected by recalls. In 2009 alone, Health Canada posted over 300 recall notices. One-third of these recalls were for children's products. This statistic alone underlines the importance of the work the department has done to regulate products for vulnerable populations.

However, the regulation of consumer products has been done in the context of the Hazardous Products Act legislation which is now over 40 years old. While that legislation may have served Canadians well in the past, it is now out of step with market globalization and out of step with the legislation of our major trading partners. Clearly, it is time update and modernize our consumer safety regime. Bill C-36, the proposed Canada consumer products safety act, would modernize and strengthen Canada's product safety legislation.

What is our goal with the bill? Bill C-36 is part of the government's comprehensive food and consumer safety action plan and targets three areas for improvement. The first area is active prevention. We want to prevent problems with consumer products before they occur. The second area is targeted oversight. By having better information, such as through mandatory incident reporting, the government will be able to better target products with the highest risk. The third area is rapid response. The legislation would give us the tools we need to act swiftly when we required

Right now our legislation supports only a reactive approach. The vast majority of consumer products are unregulated by the Hazardous Products Act. This essentially means that for the vast majority of consumer products we are very limited in the actions that we can take when a consumer safety issue is identified. Even for regulated products, like toys, children's jewellery and cribs, we are limited in the actions we can take when a safety issue is identified.

Arguably, the most significant gap in our ability to respond to safety issues is the absence of any authority to issue mandatory recalls for consumer products. This means that when a safety issue is identified with a consumer product we have very little options other than to ask the industry to recall its product voluntarily.

We will always favour a voluntary approach with industry and we believe industry will usually respond favourably. However, Canadian consumers should not have a lower standard of protection than consumers in both the United States and Europe. The need for government to have new authorities has grown in concert with the dramatic changes we have seen in the global marketplace.

The marketplace of 40 years ago when the Hazardous Products Act was introduced was very different from that of today. Products sold in Canada now come from all over the world and there are new materials, new substances and new technologies. There are new products and more products from a multiplicity of sources all around the globe.

In Canada, these are found in post-market regulatory regimes. That means that, despite what many Canadians might think, producers, importers, distributors and retailers are not required to certify or otherwise verify the safety of their products with government before they are offered for sale in this country.

Bill C-36 would not change the fundamental nature of a regulatory regime--

[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?

[Georges Simard, Mayor, City of Dolbeau-Mistassini]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning everyone. I want to convey special greetings to the workers and the unions.

Appearing today to talk about a community and try and explain to people that there is no logic to what is happening now is quite a responsibility. I will try to discharge it as best I can.

First of all, I would like to give you some background. The Town of Dolbeau-Mistassini is part of the Regional County Municipality of Maria-Chapdelaine. It comprises 12 towns. The population of that RCM is 27,000 and Dolbeau-Mistassini has a population of approximately 15,000. As will already be clear to you, that leaves about 12,000 for the 11 other towns. We constitute the commercial centre and have the hospital and school that serve the entire community. Industry in Dolbeau-Mistassini provides a living to workers from the 11 other municipalities. It is truly a very important community.

Dolbeau-Mistassini covers an area of some 40,000 square kilometers. It's as large as Switzerland. Ninety-five per cent of its surface area is covered with forest. Indeed, more than 70% of the economy in our RCM is based on the forest. We have the largest commercial forest area in Quebec. Some 3 million cubic meters of wood are harvested in our area. Our slogan is: “Maria-Chapdelaine, a generous nature to share the future”. Large quantities of wood, bark and chips are sent all across Quebec. We have always accepted that, except that now, our community which sprang from the forest, which has lived and still lives off the forest, wants to continue to do so. But there is something illogical happening: our plant has been shut down.

From its beginnings in 1927 until its indefinite closure on August 24, the paper mill has always been profitable. Even last year, a profit of $45 million was expected.

As you mentioned a little earlier, the company owners sold their cogeneration plant to Boralex in 1998, which weakened the mill. The company sold it, and yet today, the company is saying that it's unhappy about that. Its managers, who brought the company to the point where it is now, are talking about restructuring. I must admit that scares me.

AbitibiBowater says it is still interested in forest operations in our area and in the Dolbeau-Mistassini sawmill. And yet we are aware of no operational or investment plan. AbitibiBowater is prepared to talk, but only based on a highly restrictive non-competition clause. That kills any possibility of recovery or even of selling the paper mill, because AbitibiBowater owns 80% of the wood in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. Anybody interested in buying the plant would be facing a non-competition situation. Furthermore, whatever happens, it would be forced to ask AbitibiBowater for chips and bark. To which the company will reply that it is willing to sell, but at the price that it has set. That means that two plants are now endangered—both Boralex and SFK Pâte in Saint-Félicien, which makes pulp. The fact is that AbitibiBowater, or the previous companies, had sold those plants with promises and supply guarantees that they effectively ended with Bill C-36.

We are living amidst the resource and we cannot allow ourselves to be dispossessed without reacting; we cannot accept the idea of a closure as part of a financial restructuring carried out based on highly debatable rules. As I stated a little earlier, the plan closure will have wide ranging effects at the municipal, educational, business and social levels. It is an especially serious catastrophe for a single-industry town and RCM. As I mentioned earlier, 12 towns are affected.

I would like to briefly address the real estate market. Right now, a lot of houses are for sale. Some 300 people to be exact, and that is a very significant number. We are now in a buyer's market, as opposed to a seller's market. There will be very significant repercussions for the municipal budget. Dolbeau-Mistassini is a regional centre for services, business, and so on. Day in, day out, we are concerned about what people will do. They've never had a problem, but they have no other way of making a living. As a result, our health and social services centres have been responding for a number of months now. We don't understand how this kind of legislation could allow a company to jeopardize other companies. It seems that, based on this logic, in order for a bankruptcy to occur, the people who own the sawmills or sawmill equipment, or the workers, have to fail as well. That is totally unacceptable. We cannot accept the idea that a company could file a financial restructuring plan without unveiling its operational and investment plan.

The President of AbitibiBowater told you earlier that other plants will be shutting down four or five years from now. That means that people who think they are secure today will go through what we are going through now, because of people who have made sure that this company would end up this way.

Yet people are rewarded for succeeding in causing so much harm. How can anyone, at the cost of a financial restructuring, allow a company to jeopardize an entire community? The community is worried. We are convinced that September 14 and the subsequent steps are only part of a process for the company which, with the blessing and complicity of an entire system, will trot out its emergence plan, which I call a “resurrection plan”. We are being held hostage by a company that has the benefit of a monopoly. We are also concerned that our sawmill will cease operations because the company has shut down its planing units. So, they will have to dry the wood, load it onto trucks and haul it.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, at the present time, fiber is being left on the forest floor which, barely two years ago, was being processed. The company decided to leave it in the forest, because it doesn't want to process it; it would result in too many chips. One has to wonder about the FSC environmental standard. At the present time, local chips, bark and logs are travelling hundreds of kilometers, whereas in our area, everything is shut down.

Today I am sounding the alarm bell for a single-industry region and appealing to you, Mr. Chairman, and everyone present. The plant back home, which is at the centre of the resource, has no right to shut down. So, we are here today to make you aware of that.

[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?

Consumer Product Safety

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian industry and environmental groups alike welcome and strongly support our new Bill C-36, the Canada consumer product safety bill.

With an average of 300 products that are subject to recall per year, there are many stakeholders who welcome the opportunity to finally have legislation that will provide the government with the needed tools to do this.

The hon. Minister of Health tabled this legislation yesterday in response to many requests from Canadians.

We have often heard stories from victims' families recounting accidents or deaths that could have been prevented had we had legislation. Our commitment is to them, as well as to all Canadians who deserve to be represented and protected from those who continue to sell unsafe products in our country.

On this side of the House, we look forward to and encourage the support of all members of the House and the Senate in getting this done as soon as possible. Canadian families deserve it.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)