Evidence of meeting #24 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Could I have some comments from the officials on this particular amendment?
4 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
We have no concerns.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
There are no concerns.
Will we agree to accept that amendment, or is that a question?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Could the member opposite tell us the purpose of the amendment?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
It is to keep the language consistent. I'll ask the officials to comment on specifics.
June 4th, 2009 / 4 p.m.
Robert Ianiro Director, Consumer Product Safety, Department of Health
Madam Chair, this provision is related to the administrative and monetary penalties system. In a situation in which an inspector has determined that corrective action is required, an order would be issued for corrective action to be taken. In the event that the action isn't taken, they are subject to an administrative and monetary penalty.
That penalty is assessed through regulations. It is subject to review on two grounds: whether or not they actually violated the order--i.e., they did not take the action that was required--and how the monetary penalty was assessed. Both of those reviews are to be done solely through written submissions, not through oral hearings, because we had heard from stakeholders that they want these things to move quickly.
The clarification is simply to make it very clear that a review of whether they violated the order as well as a review of whether or not we calculated the fine properly are both subject to written submission. It was unclear that both of those aspects of the review are subject for review through written submission.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you, Mr. Ianiro.
Is there any other discussion?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 53 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 54 to 60 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 61--Forfeiture)
Clause 61 has a government amendment.
Dr. Carrie, would you like to speak to that one?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
It's a very simple amendment. It's a minor grammatical error. What we would suggest is the word “a” shall be replaced with the word “the”, so that Bill C-6 in clause 61 be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 22 on page 30 with the following:
has committed the violation.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 61 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 62 to 72 inclusive agreed to)
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We're going to go back to the stood clauses.
Dr. Bennett, you have all your paperwork there now?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, are you ready to proceed now? Perhaps we'll start with yours.
4 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you.
I apologize. I don't have this in writing. May I please try it?
4 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
It is that Bill C-6, in clause 4, be amended by inserting the following after line 5 on page 5:
(3) Subsection (2) is repealed on January 1, 2011.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I have it in writing here. I just have the one copy. Would that be okay?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Yes. I'm trying. As long as you don't send it in smoke signals, we'll try to work it out somehow.
Can you read it out then? We will have the clerk read it out.
4:05 p.m.
Marc Toupin Procedural Clerk
The amendment would be as follows. It's an amendment to clause 4, that Bill C-6, in clause 4, be amended by adding the following after line 5 on page 5:
(3) Subsection (2) is repealed on January 1, 2011.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Is it clear enough for the committee without having it in front of you in writing? That's pretty clear.
Could I have the officials make a comment on that, please?
4:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
We appreciate the intent of the amendment. It is problematic for a number of reasons. It essentially puts an end date on the exemption. Tobacco is covered by another piece of legislation that does not have an end date to it. The government has a strict policy for dealing with tobacco. There are five million Canadians addicted to this substance. It does take a specific approach. We see this one as problematic.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I appreciate the comments by the department, but I think we heard a very sound case being made to this committee by those in the field who are very concerned about trying to reduce the incidence of smoking. They make the very good argument that there's no reason why it shouldn't be in this act and the other act and every act we can find, because it's so important that we need to have it everywhere.
