Evidence of meeting #212 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Prof. Audrey Macklin
When you say “section 16”, I don't know which provision you mean exactly.
Noon
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I'm talking about division 16 of part 4 of the bill, which we've just discussed.
I want to know whether you think that it can be amended or whether it should simply be repealed and thrown out.
Noon
Prof. Audrey Macklin
You don't need it. There is a system in place for this. It's the Immigration and Refugee Board's refugee protection division. They are getting better. There is significant improvement in how they process their claims. If the concern is delay and inefficiency, they're working on that.
Know that if you divert to a new system—and I hope members of a finance committee appreciate this—it's going to cost money and time, and there's going to be a lot of litigation in setting up a new system. If you think it's cheaper and faster to send it to this PRRA, just know that there's been no cost estimate done of what it's going to cost in time, resources and money to hire more people, train them and deal with the litigation and the delay.
I think it makes more sense to continue to work on improving the existing system, which is happening now.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. We'll have to end it there.
We'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos and then back to Mr. Poilievre.
May 14th, 2019 / noon
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Coombs, I appreciate your testimony very much. Through no fault of your own, I ask this question.
Most Canadians will hear “true copy” and have questions about what on earth that means. Could you tell this committee once again and in basic terms what we're dealing with when we talk about true copy from a regulatory perspective?
Noon
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
Currently we have to provide our safety data sheets, which I think the clerk has shared with all of you, and we have to retain those in a database. This additional request has evolved over the course of the implementation of the Hazardous Products Act and its regulations.
Just to clarify, the Hazardous Products Act classifies and labels workplace chemicals. The act is very thick and very technical. The regulations are thick, and the guidance is thick. It's a very complicated piece of legislation and regulation to make sure that companies are compliant. As a result of this being put into the act, we have been asking Health Canada for an explanation as to how we as companies can comply with the law, paragraph 14.3(1)(a). It's been an evolving narrative.
Where we've landed over the course of the discussions in the last 18 months is that they want us to take a photo of every label we receive. They want a ruler beside the label and the photo kept, and they want us to retain that photo in a database in Canada for six years.
It's a very cumbersome process, as we go through and have to take a photo of each raw material that comes in and keep that in a database. It would be like going into Walmart or a bulk store and taking a picture of every label, and as new products come in, taking pictures of all those products as well. Then, for any changes that are made to current labels within your stock, you have to make sure those are up to date as well.
Noon
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
One of your members is 3M, and in London, Ontario, 3M is a very important company. They employ 800 people. I think about what this proposed measure would entail for them from a cost perspective, in particular, as well as for many other companies, not to mention only 3M.
I heard you say in your testimony that there's no clearly defined benefit that's been articulated to you. The organization engaged on this with officials from Health Canada, I believe. Is that correct?
Noon
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
What was the rationale offered? There must have been some....
Noon
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
That's an evolving narrative, as well.
Noon
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
What has your organization been told about what this proposed change is going to lead to?
Noon
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
First of all, we had the officials speak to us and say it's a legibility issue. We've never had this requirement previously, and it was in 2014 that it was put in. It was illegibility. Well, then, if it's legibility, could you please clarify what that means? Then we moved into, “Oh, we need it for inspection purposes.” We've never needed that before, so why do we need it for inspection? Now we're being told that they need it for latent adverse effects. Latent adverse effects are a lot longer than six years.
As I said, it's a constantly evolving narrative as to why.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
You've been given different explanations.
It's my understanding that no other country has this in place. Is that correct?
12:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
Yes, that is correct.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
That is your understanding as well. That's a concern. Certainly as a member of Parliament based in London, Ontario, when a company like 3M...and there would be other companies because we have a manufacturing base in London that is very important to our local economy. Your concerns are justified, and therefore, I'm concerned.
Thank you very much for raising your perspective today.
12:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
Thank you very much.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I believe I have three minutes remaining, Mr. Chair, so I want to turn questions to Ms. Macklin, if I could.
Professor, do you respect the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?
12:05 p.m.
Prof. Audrey Macklin
Some of it.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It's interesting. I listened to your testimony, and you've done very important work over the years at the University of Toronto. You've been an outspoken advocate on the need for Canada to remain a welcoming country.
I want to read for you what the representative of the UNHCR to Canada, Mr. Jean-Nicolas Beuze, says about the proposed change. He says, “The measure...still upholds a welcoming approach”. He calls it reasonable, and he says, most importantly, that what has been proposed here in the BIA is “in line with international law” because asylum seekers are still entitled to a process that considers whether they will face persecution in their home country if deported from Canada.
I think it's very important for the record to reflect what the UNHCR has to say on this issue. The UNHCR, arguably, is the global body tasked with advocating for refugees and respected for that very reason. We can agree or disagree, obviously.
You said, Professor, that you disagree with some of their positions on certain issues but the UNHCR's work speaks for itself. It's done an outstanding job in making sure that refugees are protected.
You gave a hypothetical example of an Iranian student who may feel justifiably, as you put it, that the U.S. is not a safe country for them. I wonder, though, what you would tell the 50,000 people who applied to be refugees in 2018, who were refugee claimants, who sought refuge in the United States. That is to ask you a very specific question. I understand your concerns about the United States, but I would ask you this. Is it not the case that the United States is much more than simply the presidency, that there is in fact a rule of law system in place in the United States, that there are avenues for individuals to seek due process under the law, fairly and equitably?
When we raise these hypotheticals, with all due respect, it needlessly creates questions and fears among Canadians who want our country to remain welcoming. When we have the UNHCR on side with this proposed change, when we take into account that the United States is not simply President Trump, that it's a much more complicated.... There are nuances here. There's a real democracy still in place in the United States—
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
The final point is that the proposed change would only impact 3% of refugee claimants in Canada. With the greatest of respect, the doomsday scenario that you point out is really not here. We hear that from the NDP, certainly, here at the committee and in Parliament when it comes to this change. This measure is intended to bring about greater fairness in the system here in Canada. That's how I see it. You're free to comment if you wish.
12:05 p.m.
Prof. Audrey Macklin
If it only affects 3%, but it could be a matter of life and death for that 3%, why are you doing it at all?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
They are still entitled to a hearing. They are still entitled to due process—
12:05 p.m.
Prof. Audrey Macklin
Well, that—