Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
6:55 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
If I might just add to that, it might alleviate the concern.
Where there's scientific evidence, using equally valid methods, that the product both meets and does not meet the criteria, the product must be classified.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
A little further to that, Ms. McDonald, can you translate that one for me—English to English?
Give me the scenario again.
6:55 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Sure.
If you have two studies that are deemed to be equally valid, where one study says this product does not cause cancer—because we used “cancer” before—and another one that say this product does cause cancer, then we always go with “it does” and it needs to be classified appropriately.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Under the department's version, is that action the precautionary principle? Is that how you would see it enacted in life, or is that an expression fraught with all sorts of—
6:55 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Not to get too scientific—and I don't deal with precautionary principle—but it's a very similar kind of standard whereby we would always be as conservative as possible.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's an unfortunate particular term. A small c is what I imagine was being applied there.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
6:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6:55 p.m.
NDP
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We're going to go to vote on amendment PV-9.
Is it recorded, or just a show of hands?
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
All right.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to clause 115.
(Clause 115 agreed to)
Colleagues, I don't have any amendments for clauses 116 to 118. Can I group them together?
6:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
On clause 119, we have one amendment, PV-10. We'll go to Ms. May again, please.
6:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
This is similar but is dealing with the point in clause 119 when, under the act, the Governor in Council is amending to delete a reference to a hazardous material. In the decision that the Governor in Council might take to remove a hazardous product from the schedule, this amendment would require transparency and relevant information and also would ensure that the decision being taken was taken pursuant to the precautionary principle.
Thank you.
7 p.m.
Conservative
7 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Again, in the process we're using, because Ms. May's time is so restrictive, I would like to use my time to ask the department officials for any opinions or for what they imagine the impact might be of this particular amendment, PV-10.
7 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
While the Governor in Council making publicly available all relevant information, taking into account the amending of schedule 1 or 2, would be contrary to maintaining cabinet confidence, certain relevant information would be disclosed and shared through a significant consultation process with stakeholders and interested parties. That includes the public consultation as part of the full regulatory process.
Furthermore, you'll note that under section 19 of the Hazardous Products Act there is a requirement to consult with all WHMIS stakeholders—again, that tripartite system I spoke of before—prior to making any changes, and finally, of course, review by parliamentarians through the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. There is significant consultation related to both of those schedules.
7 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll go to the vote on PV-10. All in favour?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 119 agreed to)
Colleagues, I don't have any amendments for clauses 120 to 162. Can I group those?