Health Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you very much for coming.

Minister, this bill obviously has a very long history within this committee and in the Senate as well.

Some of the witnesses who had come forward--in particular, Option consommateurs, had recommended a national recall registry to put together a list that would actually identify the products that are being recalled with information to be able to help consumers.

I know even talking to my constituents in Brampton—Springdale that one day a crib is being recalled; another day a piece of jewellery is being recalled; food is being recalled. The list goes on and on. This particular bill really didn't address the recall register.

Would you be able to provide some information as to why Health Canada didn't incorporate a recall registry into Bill C-36? And do you think such a thing would be necessary to help Canadians when we are having products recalled?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Minister Aglukkaq.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Absolutely. We have, within the legislation we're proposing, mandatory recall mechanisms, and once we have that system in place we will have a registry to identify the products that have been recalled in Canada and elsewhere.

Thank you.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Do you mean this particular bill will provide for a requirement to establish a registry or that you hope to establish one?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

We don't have mandatory recall mechanism in place. With this, yes, we are hoping to establish one within the resources that we have identified to implement this legislation once it becomes law.

Thank you.

Mr. Glover can elaborate.

[Paul Glover]

Madam Chair, if I may, I'll complement the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Yes, please go ahead, Mr. Glover.

[Paul Glover]

While we don't have mandatory reporting in the current legislation, Health Canada, recognizing that consumers are interested, has a database available of all recalls that we have initiatied. We also work on a voluntary basis with industry, whereby they inform us of products that they've chosen to recall on their own initiative. We put those all into one centralized database, which is available on our website. We are making best efforts in the interim to inform Canadians about products that we've recalled or that industry has chosen to recall.

In addition to that, consumers can sign up for RSS feeds and other things like that, so that they don't necessarily have to come to our website but can receive automatic updates from us on products that have been recalled.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I think the minister mentioned in her remarks that in the era of globalization we're getting a lot of products into Canada from different parts of the world. One of the concerns mentioned by some of the critics has outlined the fact that there are going to be different safety standards for imported products from those for products manufactured in Canada. Where are we, if this legislation is passed, in terms of an international realm for protecting the consumer and of having legislation? And from your perspective, is there going to be a difference between the mechanisms for safety for imported products and those made here in Canada?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

In my view, there will be no difference in that process and the mechanisms. But having said that, we have to recognize that we're dealing with legislation that is outdated now that there's a real global market in Canada. In my view, this legislation would bring us on par with other countries, such that we'd have updated legislation parallel with that of other jurisdictions that would allow us the same level playing field in trade, in monitoring, and in reporting. Currently we don't have that and we are behind other countries, chasing after this information.

Once we have legislation that is current, we'll become a part of that network of countries that shares information on unsafe products in the market and will be able to collaborate in setting standards, as Paul Glover mentioned—in terms of setting standards for cadmium, as an example. But we're not there yet. With this legislation we'll be able to do more of those types of shared networking with other countries.

I'll have Paul elaborate a bit more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Glover.

[Paul Glover]

Very briefly, Madam Chair, in response to the member's question, let me say that the other risk in the absence of this new legislation is of Canada's becoming a dumping ground for unsafe products. The U.S. and the EU have what is the equivalent of a general prohibition, which says that industry must sell safe products. In Canada, with the HPA, which is reactive, they could then say “If we can't sell this in our current country, we can try to put it into another country where they have a lesser regime”, and that would then force us to react.

With the new legislation that's before you, we would be more harmonized. All products, domestically and internationally, would be treated the same. The risk right now is that we have a lesser standard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Glover.

We'll now go to Monsieur Dufour. You have 10 minutes.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here today, Minister.

This really is paradoxical. You're telling us that it's time to pass this bill, that it has to be done quickly and that time is running out, but the government has dragged its feet. In November 2006, the Auditor General tabled a report revealing that the Government of Canada knew the risks to consumers as a result of a lack of financing. In 2007, the Bloc Québécois suggested that the minister take immediate action and tighten those safety requirements for hazardous products. In December 2007, you announced an action plan to ensure the safety of food products. One year after the auditor's report, you tabled Bill C-52, one and a half years later. Then, in September, your Prime Minister decided to call an election despite the fact, as you will recall, that there was an act providing for elections on fixed dates. In deciding to call an election, the Prime Minister automatically killed Bill C-52.

You came back and tabled Bill C-6 in January 2009, and that took us up to the prorogation that the Prime Minister requested in December 2009, as a result of which the bill was derailed again.

Minister—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

With all due respect, Monsieur Dufour, can we get to Bill C-36?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, I'm providing background—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Immediately, sir.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm providing some background to show that it's all well and good for the government to say that the act hasn't been amended in 40 years and that that's a problem—we know there have been a lot of problems, such as toy recalls, since 2006—but every time we've wanted to work on the bill and pass it, Minister, your government, your department and the Prime Minister have engaged in obstruction. However, we do agree that the four parties were in unanimous agreement on the principles of the bill.

Questions arise at some point, Minister. I find it paradoxical that you say time is running out and that you issued a news release in 2007 to tell us that this was important, that you couldn't wait to talk to us about the bill in detail and that it was time for things to move forward. Why then didn't you seek unanimous consent in June? We held five committee meetings and did a lot of work on this matter. Why didn't your department and your government take steps to ensure that the bill would be passed quickly when there was a consensus among the political parties?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Madam Minister.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

Thank you for your question. I'll start with the response and then go into some of our other initiatives to move forward on consumer product safety.

As the member is well aware, the health and safety of Canadians is the priority of our government. I know the member is well aware that the global economic situation has been an issue for us. Under the guidance of our government, we've been a leader in dealing with the economic recovery, and the economic recovery of our country has been a priority.

I was pleased that the bill received all-party support in the House the last time it was introduced, and I hope members will continue to support the speedy passage of this legislation; it's been a long time.

And I recognize all that you've outlined. In my view, we missed an opportunity last year before prorogation to have this bill passed in the Senate. Again I introduce it, and I'm seeking your support to move it quickly in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Thank you.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, if you say I'm straying off topic by providing background to the bill, I don't see what the economic crisis has to do with it. The economic crisis is unrelated to the passage of a bill; at least that's what I think. Nevertheless, four years elapsed between the tabling of the Auditor General's report and the start of the debate on second reading of Bill C-36.

I have to wonder, Minister. I see that all the parties want to move as quickly as possible. However, we see that there has been no concrete action on the government side. I repeat, in June 2010, when Bill C-36 was introduced, you could have sought unanimous consent. The committee had already worked on it; we had been working on it for a long time. Between the end of April and June 2009, we had five meetings on Bill C-36, and the committee was unanimous; there was consent by all parties. When I'm told that this is important, that we have to move quickly...

We saw what happened with cadmium, for example. If the bill had already been passed, we could have avoided problems last year. So you can't tell me that you're taking this seriously and that you want to take all possible steps. We can see that's not the case. Not all steps have been taken, and, no, you haven't been as quick as you could have been.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

I totally disagree with that. There were some amendments that were made by Liberal senators that were very problematic and we could not move forward with them in 2009. They were problematic in a sense that they had basically put the legislation to the point where it was not workable for us. So we weren't going to move forward with that.

With those issues that were raised, again to move forward and clarify without taking authority away from the intent of the legislation, we worked through that and then clarified for the Liberal senator what was requested. The 30-day timeline is an example, the issue of storage facilities is an example, the issue of privacy, and all these things. We've been working through all of these for a long time.

I really do appreciate the House support and unanimous consent from the members to proceed to the Senate. However, when it got to the Senate, there were amendments that were very problematic for us. And again, in June, I reintroduced that legislation.

We've had other issues, like the global economic issue that the member is well aware of that is a priority for our government, as this is too.

I can't speak to what happened before my time. What I can speak to is that we are moving to address many of the concerns that are raised. And I think this is a good bill for Canada.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much. You know, Minister, that a government can walk and chew gum at the same time. However, I understand the problem with the Senate and I entirely agree with you. That's one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish it.

Let's change the subject, Minister. With regard to Bill C-36, I have certain questions about the minister's discretionary authority. I would simply like you to explain to me how a recall might be done and how you will determine that a product is hazardous. Also, what limits will you set for yourselves for recalling one product rather than another?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

The way the legislation is now written, based on a recommendation of the investigation, the research on a product, and based on evidence, a recommendation would be put forth to the minister or designate to order a recall.

We determine that a product is dangerous by starting off with thedefinition that's outlined in the legislation, and the definition is the danger to human health or safety. Very simply, it includes an unreasonable hazard posed by a consumer product. The reference “unreasonable hazard” is included to make it very clear that the generally accepted hazard that some consumer products pose by their very nature, such as chainsaws, power tools, or kitchen knives, is not captured by the general prohibition. As an example, a knife is meant to be sharp; it's not posed as dangerous. Products that contain lead are toxic. These are differences that are identified.

Through definition, investigations are conducted. Based on evidence, recommendations would be made whether a product should be recalled or not. In this legislation, that recommendation would go to the minister. Again, to address some of the concerns that were raised, we've clarified who has the authority to order mandatory recalls of products in this legislation.