Finance Committee on May 27th, 2019

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I will say this because I see an opportunity to raise it here, even though it's not within the scope of the BIA.

Since we are hearing from Mr. Yalkin at Health Canada, there were concerns raised about true copy in the deliberations that we had two weeks ago. Again, I know that's not within the scope of the BIA, but there were serious concerns around the table about the issue.

I have 3M in London, Ontario, which employs hundreds of people; it's a pillar of our economy locally. I simply hope that those conversations continue and I hope Health Canada listens to the issues raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In a similar vein, in the area that I represent as one of the MPs from York Region, we have a very robust manufacturing base, and with that a number of organizations spanning the spectrum from agri-food companies to auto parts suppliers to health providers of products and services relating to CCSPA.

With our government's frame of reference on regulatory modernization and lifting unnecessary regulatory burden from industries is well noted. My reference is that there are some unnecessary regulations that need to be looked at and that folks in various departments, including Health Canada, need to work in a more collaborative fashion with industry stakeholders and understand their concerns and needs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think most of this relates to subdivision H, so we'll stick with clause 198 and go to a recorded vote.

I don't know whether you want to respond to any of that, Mr. Yalkin. It all comes under this whole section, but I do know that all members have been approached by the CCSPA over the concern about the cost to business around this issue. We've had pressure for amendments, if I could put it that way, but it falls outside the scope of this BIA. It may come forward in the future.

I guess I'd express to you as chair that from what I've heard, we hope Health Canada can deal with this issue in a constructive way, and deal with the concerns that have come forward, if I could put it that way, and not add that burden of cost onto business.

All right. Shall clause 198 carry? We will have a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Clause 198 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

On clause 199, is there any further discussion you want to add, Mr. Dusseault, or do you want to go to a recorded vote?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would like a recorded vote.

(Clause 199 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On clause 200, a recorded vote has been requested.

(Clause 200 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

That's carried as voted.

We will have recorded votes right up to clause 212, I believe?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Shall clause 201 carry?

(Clause 201 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

That's carried as voted. Now we go to clause 202, please, Mr. Clerk.

(Clause 202 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On clause 203, we will have a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Clause 203 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

On clause 204, it will be a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Clause 204 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

On clause 205, we will have a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Clause 205 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

On clause 206, we will have a recorded vote.

(Clause 206 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

On clause 207, we will have a recorded vote.

(Clause 207 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

On clause 208, we will have a recorded vote.

(Clause 208 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

On clause 209, we will have a recorded vote.

(Clause 209 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

On clause 210, we will have a recorded vote.

(Clause 210 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

On clause 211, it will be a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Clause 211 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

On clause 212, we will have a recorded vote.

(Clause 212 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

Go ahead, Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I have something to say before we finish with this. The members of the committee should thank me because I could do this for every clause we study in the bill. It's simply a matter of principle. I wanted to see who committee members would side with—workers or industry—and I got my answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault.

(Clauses 213 to 216 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 217)

We still have the same officials on this clause. I believe we're at amendment LIB-4.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

That's mine, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

These amendments are rather straightforward.

They would help to ensure the transparency of the process for avoiding duplication in conducting special reviews. In particular, they would add text to clause 217 to clarify that the minister would always consult on a new aspect of concern that was added to an ongoing post-market review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion?

The motion is on amendment LIB-4.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment PV-1 can't be moved since LIB-4 was adopted, so that amendment is out of order now. NDP-3 is the same.

(Clause 217 agreed to on division)

(On clause 218)

We will move to clause 218.

Go ahead, Mr. Manly, but first of all, welcome to the House of Commons after your recent election. Welcome to this committee.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

This amendment is based on a joint brief from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice Canada, Environmental Defence and Équiterre. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the minister will make public any decision not to initiate a special review that would otherwise be required when an OECD member country prohibits all uses of a pesticide.

Subsection 17(2) of the Pest Control Products Act mandates a special review if an OECD member country prohibits all uses of a pesticide for health or environmental reasons.

Proposed subsection 17.1(2) would introduce an exception allowing the health minister discretion to determine whether additional information is available that warrants a special review under section 17(2) of the act. With no clear criteria set out for making such a determination and no notice or consultation requirement, this provision lacks transparency and could prevent appropriate consideration of the environmental and health information that another jurisdiction relied on in deciding to prohibit all uses of a pesticide. This lack of transparency runs contrary to efforts to enhance confidence in Canada's pesticide regulatory system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Did you have your hand up, Pierre?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will go to Mr. Dusseault and then Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Just to clarify, is this PV-1?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

No, it's PV-2. PV-1 was ruled out after LIB-4 passed.

Mr. Dusseault and then Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the new member at the table for his contribution.

You'll notice that my NDP amendment…. I don't know which number it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's NDP-4.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Okay. You'll notice that amendment NDP-4 is identical. It is based on the same sources of information. I am therefore delighted to support amendment PV-2.

As my fellow member indicated, when a decision is made not to initiate a special review of a pest control product—or pesticide—the least the government can do is give Canadians access to the information that prompted the minister's decision. Canadians, overall, have doubts about these products and their health effects. I think they would welcome the minister having to justify his or her decision.

Very often, Canadians may not agree with the decision, but at the very least, there would be some transparency. Canadians could see the reasons why the decision was made and, then, determine for themselves whether they were satisfied with their government and felt it was making the right decisions to protect them. Building that transparency into the legislation is entirely appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have officials here as well. I think this is your area, isn't it, Mr. Flint? If there are any questions related to these amendments, this is Mr. Flint's area.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.