Evidence of meeting #36 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
It's a Canadian act. It could be changed within Canada. That's all I'm saying.
11:55 a.m.
Manager, Consumer and Cleaning Products, Department of the Environment
Sorry, I would have to come back and consult on that.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
I understand the authority that you're trying to vest in this, but I'm wondering if there is a way to do it more narrowly and whether this authority here isn't too broad for the purposes of it. For instance, a cleaning product sounds pretty broad to me. There are different characteristics of cleaning products.
Is there a way to qualify that and narrow the scope of this statutory authority?
11:55 a.m.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Again, I'll turn to my colleague from Environment.
11:55 a.m.
Manager, Consumer and Cleaning Products, Department of the Environment
This authority was proposed as a broad regulation-making authority, in keeping with the design of CEPA. There are many different ways to exempt within the act. CEPA generally functions as an enabling statute and provides us with the tools to effectively address environmental risks. This was done in a broad fashion to give us that flexibility while accomplishing this goal.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
I'm going to bring it to a question.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to the original clause, clause 31.
(Clause 31 agreed to on division)
Shall clause 32 carry?
(Clause 32 agreed to)
(On clause 33)
I think what I'm going to start doing is asking whether anybody has anything against the clause. If I don't hear anything, I'll just move on. How's that?
That brings us to clause 33. We have another amendment.
I think the amendment is from the Conservatives. Do you have any comments on it?
Noon
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Yes.
The witnesses before this presented their case, and I think they made a good case on redefining labelling and moving into the electronic side of it and so on, so I fully support the amendment.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Are there any other comments on this?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we have another amendment also dealing with clause 33. I think it also comes from the Conservatives.
Are the any comments from the Conservatives on this amendment?
Noon
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I'd like to ask the department officials their thoughts on including the word “prescribed”. I wonder if they can comment on their thoughts around the changes that are being proposed in this amendment, and if it would impact the bill in any way?
Noon
Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Chair, if I may, I'll turn to my colleague from Health Canada, Mr. Flint, to respond to that.
Noon
Jason Flint Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Health
Thank you.
The inclusion of the word “prescribed” would limit the authorities we would have around labelling to those elements that are in the regulations, so we would be limited more than we are currently. Currently, there is authority under section 8 of the act for the minister to place conditions, which then go onto the label. If it were just “prescribed by regulation”, you would be limiting the ministerial authority to do that, which allows for product-specific conditions to be placed on a product label.
Noon
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
We heard clearly from the stakeholders that this is something they're looking to see changed, and we heard their arguments for it. I'm wondering if you had consultation with the stakeholders that we heard from today and if you reviewed their concerns in the implication of this clause.
Noon
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Health
Since the bill was introduced, we have had a number of conversations with stakeholders about this, about their concerns. Part of it is trying to reconcile the fact that, yes, the definition of “label” may be larger than it was before but the elements are coming out of “package”. If you look at the explanatory notes, for example, in the bill for this particular piece, they talk about the definition of a “package” and currently, at the end of the definition, it says, “including the label and anything else that accompanies the product and conveys information about it”. It's a very broad definition. Those are the informational requirements of “package”. That's been removed in the new proposed definition of “package” to facilitate the goods in transit.
They have tried to capture that element under the new definition of “label”, which we tried to make consistent with other pieces of Health Canada legislation, such as the Safe Food for Canadians Act, the Food and Drugs Act, and the Hazardous Products Act. We try to take elements of that and harmonize more broadly with those pieces of legislation to give a definition that would capture all the informational requirements under the definition of “label”.
Noon
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
The other question I have is around the inclusion of digital information. This is the way of the world. We're certainly going to a more digital format. We heard clearly that it's often an issue to put that information on a label because it's so extensive, so they're using QR codes and links to websites and different things. I think the inclusion of that here makes sense on the surface, since we would be looking forward to where we're going in terms of labelling around these products.
I'm wondering if you can speak to the second part of the amendment that includes that, and what your thoughts are on including language such as this, which takes into account digital forms.
12:05 p.m.
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Health
I'll just get the right wording.
In the definition that was proposed, the words “belongs to” were included. The other words in the language refer to labels that would accompany or be in physical proximity to the product. Adding the words “belongs to” gave us the flexibility to regulate an electronic label, because it doesn't necessarily have to be with the product. That's where we got that language from.
The wording in the definition here allows for some digital material to be transmitted.
12:05 p.m.
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Health
In the definition that was provided in the bill, the words “belongs to” were placed there to facilitate that electronic label. It's wording that is used in the Food and Drugs Act, for example, in their definition of “label”, and by including that wording in the definition, it allowed for electronic labels to be permitted.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I see other definitions included here. Was there thought to giving the definition of that term, so that it would be clearly stated within this bill that it would include electronic and digital information?
12:05 p.m.
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Health
In the definition in the act...?
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
There are a lot of definitions that are included in subclause 33(1), but it doesn't speak specifically about anything in digital form.