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.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Regarding the language, this new clause refers back to section 5.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Great. That's all. I'm sorry to hesitate and interrupt the vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay.
NDP-1.2, on page 7.4, will not proceed if we approve the new clause 3.1 on page 7.1.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, is the new clause 3.1 called clause 4 on this page?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
It's good that it's not Friday.
So page 7.4 will not be dealt with, then, if we approve of this new clause 3.1. Is that clear?
Mr. Warawa.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Because of the amendments we made and the votes we took, we will eliminate NDP-1 on page 8 and BQ-1 on page 10. NDP-3 on page 12 will become the new clause 3.2.
Mr. Cullen, could you please speak to NDP-3, which is now new clause 3.2?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is concerning medical devices. One of the things that were brought up was a concern around certain medical devices not being available. This allows a three-year window and then a three-year extension, if allowed. This is in some contention directly to some of the issues brought up, but we thought this amendment allowed the switch to become possible, and if it wasn't possible, the Governor in Council could allow a three-year window extension so that there would be no interruption in services or products.
Conservative
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'd like to ask the officials. Are there any potential unintended consequences that might flow from this change?
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
This particular version--and I think it was left over from a discussion that we were going to have on Tuesday--actually would perhaps force us at the end of the six-year period to lose access to very valuable medical devices because we have not been able to do the safety assessment and to declare that they are equally as effective as the DEHP-containing devices. So this could have unintended negative consequences for health.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
May I ask also, Mr. Chair, how long the safety assessment would take?
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
I think it's not a matter of one individual medical device; it's a safety assessment for every application that we're trying to remove. There is a whole range of products out there, so it's not that we can do something in a period of time; it's finding the right alternative that is safe to replace a particular use.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Can you give us any indication at all of how long it would take?
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
This is beyond the scope. I cannot give you a sense of it until we can move to an environment where we're completely free of DEHP in medical devices. We've heard from some of the other witnesses that they're essential in blood bags, and I know we've talked about that. But I can't give a blanket assessment of when we could move to that. That's why another approach has come forward that we would like to hear about later on.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So a potential unintended consequence, then, of this amendment is that we may be denying use of products that are presently being used for medical procedures, without a substitute available?
