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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Could I have some comment from the officials? Is that fine?
Mr. Glover.
Paul Glover Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
That's fine.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 19 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 20 to 29 inclusive agreed to)
(Clauses 31 to 36 inclusive agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We have a new clause 36.1, with two proposed amendments from Madam Wasylycia-Leis.
Madam Wasylycia-Leis, we have your very important new clause 36.1. Can I ask you to favour us with your knowledge of this new amendment?
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Chair, you will be familiar with this proposal. It is somewhat along the lines of the motion that we passed to amend Bill C-11. It allows for parts of this bill that require regulations to come back to the House and to the Senate. So it gives a chance to the health committee, if the House so chooses, to further scrutinize the parts of this bill that are left for very specific drafting and regulatory efforts.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, both of your motions are extremely similar. I've been advised that you probably would choose to have NDP-2.1, but could I ask—
Conservative
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Yes, that's correct. We changed NDP-2.1. That's the copy I'd like you to use.
Conservative
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
I'm not sure the officials have been provided with NDP-2.1.
Conservative
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Thank you.
With respect to our comments on this, we understand and appreciate the objective of the amendment. The concern the department would have with this is with respect to paragraph 36.1(3)(b), the 160 calendar days. The government has been criticized that it has been slow to move under the Hazardous Products Act, and to have 160 days for the committee to consider regulations when the House isn't sitting....
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
With your help, Madam Chair, when we sent NDP-2 in for redrafting and to make some changes, we had also intended that proposed paragraph 36.1(4)(b), which talks about 160 calendar days, would be changed to 90 days.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I would make that a friendly amendment to my own amendment.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
The department has no concerns and appreciates the consideration.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Well, then, if the committee agrees, we could change 160 days to 90 days. Does everyone agree to that? Are we agreed?
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now, is everybody in favour of this amendment as amended? It is the amendment as amended, as it were, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. Is everyone in favour of that?
Go ahead, Dr. Bennett.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I just want to know from the officials the practicality of bringing every single regulation....
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Our understanding of the amended version of this regulation is that it's limited to a specific set of regulations that the committee would have interest in. Under the act, those would be regulations developed under proposed paragraphs 36.1(4)(a), (b), and (c), which are not all of the regulations. They would be the foundational regulations, the ones we believe the committee would have the most interest in. This approach would allow the department to move expeditiously on some of the more technical regulations, ones in which the committee might have less interest, and we could move more quickly to protect the health and safety of Canadians.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
What would you do if you felt there was need for a regulation during the summer?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
With the reduction to 90 days, we think that such a situation will be manageable for us. Under Canada Gazette part I, our normal comment period is approximately 75 to 90 days anyway, so these are actually aligning, and we feel we could make that work.
Since the amendments that have been proposed limit the scope of this to regulations under paragraphs 36.1(4)(a), (b), and (c) and move the time period from 160 days to 90 days, the department is of the view that we can make this work.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 37 to 52 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 53--Review --with respect to facts)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I believe there's a government amendment on clause 53.
Go ahead, Dr. Carrie.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
This is a minor amendment that will ensure that subclause 53(5) is consistent with the rest of clause 53. The government is proposing that Bill C-6 in clause 53 be amended by replacing lines 15 to 17 on page 28 with the following:
(5) The Minister is to consider only written evidence and written submissions in determining whether a person committed a violation or whether a penalty was established in accordance with the regulations.