Evidence of meeting #34 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'm sorry. Did you say that there have been cases but they weren't successful?
1:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services Unit--Health Canada, Department of Justice
No. What I'm saying is that I can verify that there haven't been cases, but I am not aware of any successful cases for sure. I just haven't done the research in detail right now, but I'm quite certain that this is not a major problem for the CFIA.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I have a brief one. We feel pretty strongly about this, which is ironic, because it's about protecting the government minister, which you would think the government side would do.
After hearing what Mr. Young and Mr. Edwards have had to say, I think, as Mr. Young has pointed out on many occasions, we're dealing with some pretty big players here. Maybe under food recall, yes, there are big players there too, but I just think that it is a kind of precautionary measure to be very explicit about this particular bill, because the bill does give extraordinary powers to the minister. Of course, one always assumes that the minister acts in good faith and so on, but I think that to be cautious and to ensure that this is very clear, we should include this in the bill. I think the witnesses were pretty clear on that. They thought it was very important.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Are there other comments on this? All right.
I think it's probably appropriate at this time to mention this. If NDP-4 is defeated or adopted, amendment LIB-2 won't proceed, because it's identical to the NDP one. That's just so everybody knows that ahead of time.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
We've had a request for a recorded vote on amendment NDP-4.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment is defeated, and we won't need to deal with amendment LIB-2 either.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Chair, before we get to amendment NDP-4.1, I'd like to propose a couple of amendments, if possible, to clause 6. May I go ahead?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
We'll show it to you, and then I'll take it back and I'll read it.
(On clause 6)
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
On a point of order, I know that Mr. Scarpaleggia hasn't actually read it yet, but does it come ahead of line 13?
We have NDP-4. It's ahead of that?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I would move to amend proposed paragraph 6(1.2)(a) by including, on line 9, the word “reprocessing” after the word “manufacture.”
In other words, what we're trying to get at here is the testimony of Ms. Abbey, I think. That was pretty powerful testimony. We think we should take the opportunity of this bill to act on this issue.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I'd just say that I did some checking on this. We're not aware of problems other than for.... Certainly it's a big advantage to people marketing new products not to have them cleaned and reused, but we're not aware of any incidents, whether you're using an autoclave or some other way of cleaning things and reprocessing. We do it all the time with other surgical instruments.
Without evidence of a problem there, the cost saving for provinces and hospitals is a big concern today. If it's an economic model we're trying to protect by this inclusion, it's not clear that the companies that provide the one-time use items are in fact providing a service to reprocess their own products.
As it exists now, we have the ability to act through regulations, as far as I understand from our officials. I think we're fine on that particular issue.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Are there any other comments or further clarifications?
We have Mr. Scarpaleggia's amendment, and we'll call it Liberal amendment 2.1. It's the portion where he's adding in “reprocessing”.
All those in favour of Mr. Scarpaleggia's amendment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Davies.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
This is NDP-4.1. We're moving that clause 6 be amended by adding, after line 13 on page 6, the following: (a.1) respecting the refusal of issuance of an authorization if the person did not register the clinical trials and investigational tests involving human subjects under paragraph (c.1);
The purpose of this is to ensure that if somebody didn't register for a clinical trial, then they would be refused an authorization for use. We think it's just a clarity in the bill and making it very clear that there's no further authorization if there wasn't a registration.