Evidence of meeting #55 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Amendment NDP-3 on page 12 and the government's motion on page 15.2 are dealing with the same issue of medical devices. Mr. McGuinty brought up the issue of unintended consequences. We agree, and I'm hoping we can find some middle ground here. I thought we had some. The proposal would ultimately result in the ban of safe and effective medical devices, even if there were no safe and effective alternatives in Canada, which is Mr. McGuinty's point.
Under Mr. Cullen's proposal, regulatory decisions made by another regulatory agency about the safety and effectiveness of DEHP-free alternatives would determine whether or not DEHP-containing medical devices would be available in Canada. The current medical device regulations prohibit the sale or importation into Canada of unlicensed medical devices, even if they've been approved for sale in another regulatory jurisdiction. Health Canada's safety requirements for medical devices are generally more stringent than those in many countries, and generally you'll find more evidence for safety and effectiveness.
Unfortunately, we cannot accept this amendment as it may introduce new potential safety risks posed by using DEHP devices not approved for use in Canada. We believe our recommendation on page 15.2 strikes that balance, and we would hope that Mr. Cullen would withdraw his motion and support the one on page 15.2.
Thank you.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We're prepared to go to the government's suggestion, but let it be known within the committee that I have deep concerns with the approach taken by government officials on this one, particularly to raise the spectre of people not being able to gain access to needed surgeries.
There are two reasons. One built right into this regulation would allow the government to extend the use of devices that contain DEHP. That was one of the things we said. The second is that we have list after list of hospitals in Canada and North America that are going DEHP-free, clearly not jeopardizing their patients.
So while I will withdraw this amendment because it was some part of the negotiation, it's absolutely ridiculous to keep suggesting this notion that someone's going to be lying on a hospital table somewhere in Canada not being able to receive medical assistance because of this bill's proposal. Government, at some point or another, will find its way to where the medical consensus is coming from, that DEHP-free medical devices are becoming a standard. They are becoming a norm because the companies are making them, the hospitals are accepting them, and they're advertising the fact they are DEHP-free. So we'll move to the labelling as a first step, but this effort is certainly not done today.
So I'll withdraw this motion.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
It's being withdrawn, so I don't think we need to speak to it, Mr. Bigras. Is there something different?
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We can move on.
Perhaps we could look at page 13.1, NDP amendment 3.1. The clerk has pointed out a real similarity between page 15.3, which is numbered in your book as proposed clause 7. So if you could look at page 13.1, NDP amendment 3.1 and page 15.3, proposed clause 7, there is a similarity between those two.
Mr. Warawa.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, I think the first difference is the timeframe. The NDP is recommending within 12 months for the reassessment, and the government is recommending within 24 months.
If I could defer to the department in the spirit of doing it as quickly as possible, which is the more realistic of the two timeframes? Is it possible to do a proper reassessment within the 12 months?
12:30 p.m.
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
We would prefer the 24 months. We want to do a good job on this. We want to have the right peer review that would normally be taken with something like that, so we would not like to do a rush job.
We would like to have the extra time to be able to do a good job, because obviously there's a lot at stake and a lot of new information has come to the table that we really want to take under consideration.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Through you to the witness, Ms. Milburn-Hopwood, was it your understanding then that the entire reassessment can take place within 24 months--beginning, middle, peer review, and end?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
All can be completed within 24 months? So it's not a situation where it's started and it takes three years or three and a half years to complete?
12:30 p.m.
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
Essentially what we do with the assessments is bring together all of the available scientific data that is there. Sometimes we have to go and get new information, but usually we use what we have, and then we will make a judgment with what the new information is. I believe these were done in the early and mid-1990s. So there is substantial information to review.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I understand this reassessment will—maybe I stand corrected—call for some kind of analysis of cumulative effects. Is that right?
12:35 p.m.
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
Yes. This is a very difficult technical area to work in—
12:35 p.m.
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
—but we use as much science as we have available on cumulative effects, and we will factor that into the reassessment.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I raise it because I had put it to some extra witnesses who appeared here, to ask them if they could define what this means, and they could not.
12:35 p.m.
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
I can't give you a technical term related to that, but it's starting to look at any synergistic effects or any additive effects, or it could be not additive effects but subtractive effects—that's not quite the right word. It's looking at whether there is any interaction between these two substances, if you need to look at the impact of one and the addition of another. So it's looking at them together, rather than as individual substances, and how they interact.
