Any comments? Back to Mr. Cullen then.
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.
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.
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I want to follow on Mr. Allen's comment.
At first I thought you were suggesting that this might be redundant, that hazardous, carcinogenic chemicals are going to get their label, that adding this together and saying.... The chemicals are already coming on site where workers are exposed, so let's just narrowcast in on that, regardless of the effects on the environment, watershed, and whatnot, but just on the workers, they're already getting labelled. Was that your point?
6:50 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
That is correct.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's right. Then you didn't necessarily respond to Mr. Allen's point that somehow, when they're combined, they then become part of this fracking fluid mix. That doesn't change any perspective from your department's handling or labelling of those chemicals. Just putting them together doesn't mean that suddenly a label is taken off.
6:50 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
So we don't know what the intended purpose necessarily is for the product that's coming in, but again, if it has a hazard, an intrinsic hazard, it would be labelled appropriately before it makes its way to the workplace.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So then that brings me back to my first point which is: is this redundant? Is this already being done? If I go to a site where fracking is going on and there are fluids that are being brought in and they're sitting in a container, are all the labels sticking on that container saying this is everything that's in here, and these are all the different risks that are available to you with this composite fluid that we're handling and putting into the ground? Is that what the situation is right now?
6:50 p.m.
Director, Policy and Program Development, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
The three components of the system apply to that chemical. So it's chemicals sold to a workplace for use in what happens to be a fracking operation. The product is labelled, there's a safety data sheet that's provided in relation to that product with detailed information on it, and workers are trained based on the information provided on the label in the safety data sheet.
6:50 p.m.
Director, Policy and Program Development, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
What isn't included in the current system is making the information part of a registry or broadly making that information public.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I see. So if you were to make an argument against this amendment, you're suggesting that....
Sorry Chair, I just want, again, to ask forgiveness from those watching, but we just didn't get into this during the study of this bill. These are parts of the bill that you just don't have time to do when it's all time allocated.
Your suggestion is that the broader dissemination of that information beyond just that question of worker safety and having that in some sort of registry, right now doesn't exist, which is your challenge with what's being proposed in PV-7.
6:50 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Correct. I would also add that the amendment duplicates proposed subsection 20(1) of the Hazardous Products Act, under which the minister already has the ability to request information relating to formula composition, chemical ingredients, hazardous properties of a product mixture, etc.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
6:50 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
The minister has the ability to request that information.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's why we'll be voting for it, because we would like it to be required. That's an interesting differentiation.
Thank you, Chair.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I have a very quick point of clarification, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cullen asked our officials if they were making a point for or against the amendment, and quite frankly, they're not here to make a point for or against. They're just simply here to answer questions based on the act.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I didn't suggest that the officials were to come out.... It was a question of redundancy. If the officials viewed this thing as already existing, and whether that was....
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
We'll go to a recorded vote then on PV-8.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to PV-9. Ms. May on PV-9 please.
6:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, this is intended as a new subclause. At page 97, this is adding subsection (2.1) to guide the determination of when products are hazardous for “use, handling or storage in a work place in Canada”. This is the application of something that Canada has been committed to, at least historically, since 1992, called the precautionary principle.
The designation of “hazardous product” would take into account that in cases of scientific uncertainty, where there is substantial evidence of harm, that the latest science would be considered. When you have substantial evidence of harm—I need to make that clear—for the precautionary principle, it's not just anything but a substantial evidence of harm. Even if there's some level of scientific uncertainty, you exercise the precautionary principle in order to designate that substance as hazardous.
Again, I appreciate that Mr. Cullen made the point that this wasn't studied in committee. It may be that the WHMIS program feels that it's already fully engaged in the precautionary principle, but I didn't find it in the act.
Thank you.
May 29th, 2014 / 6:55 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
What I will say also concerns amendment PV-10.
When I read the two amendments, one detail jumped out at me. I am wondering about the legislation's potential application. Is there an issue with the French version? I wanted to point out that, in the English version, the following is said:
“precautionary principle”.
That was translated as “principe de la prudence”. However, in French, I have always heard the term “principe de précaution” used. I did a quick web search and concluded that, both in France and in Quebec, the term “principe de précaution” is used instead of “principe de la prudence”. It seems to me that the French version is problematic.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
This is not to Mr. Côté's comment but to the amendment.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Yes.
I think the difficulty with Ms. May's amendment is her injection of the words “safety of a product”—I suspect it's a language issue—and then the fact that if you weren't sure of what a product was it automatically becomes a hazardous product. That actually goes against the Hazardous Products Act and the purpose of that act, which regulates hazardous products intended for use in the workplace. It does not regulate the safety of that hazardous product, but actually regulates—I think I'm correct here—the information on how to use it safely. That's not a play on words. That's just simply what it does.
For that reason, we wouldn't be supporting the amendment.