Debates of May 1st, 2008

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope, if you were to seek it, that you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House, with Conservative members present voting in favour.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. whip for the official opposition.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP will be voting against this motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favour of this motion.

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #95

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

Oral Questions

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order that I would like to raise with the government House leader.

I do not normally take exception to things that are said in the House, but the government House leader did completely misrepresent my views and also my actions with respect to Elections Canada, and I would like to make it clear what they are.

The government House leader said in a response to a question that the position of the Conservative Party with respect to Elections Canada was exactly the same as my position as the member for Toronto Centre. I want to set the facts on the record because I have not had an opportunity to do so, even though they have been referred to on many occasions by members of the government.

The simple fact is this. I took exception to a decision that was made by Elections Canada. I then asked for a judicial review of that decision. The Federal Court of Canada said that I was right in this particular instance. I want to make it very clear that at no time have I or any member of my party ever expressed non-confidence in Elections Canada, which is the extraordinary position that has been taken--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am afraid I do not think the rules of the House have gotten us into any difficulty on this thing, and we are getting into a debate, as has been happening a lot lately on these matters that arise in question period.

I think we will go to the Thursday question. The hon. opposition House leader has a question to ask, as he does on Thursdays.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government House leader to outline the business that he intends to call for the balance of this week and next week. In the information that he has provided so far in an informal way, the agenda seems to end at the end of the day next Tuesday, so I would be interested to know what he has in mind for the whole week following this one.

I also would ask him specifically if he is in a position today to agree to concurrence by unanimous consent in the Senate amendments that have been made to Bill C-293. That bill is done in the Senate. It has been reported back to the House with some technical amendments, amendments that were in fact proposed by the Conservative Party. All other parties are prepared to accept those amendments and agree to that bill proceeding to conclusion now by unanimous consent, so I would ask the government House leader if he is prepared to agree to his own amendments.

Second, there are still three opposition days that need to be designated in this sitting before the House adjourns in June. I wonder if the government House leader could tell us if he intends to designate opposition days in the period between now and May 16 and, if so, which days those would be.

Finally, in the business of supply, it is the prerogative of the official opposition to select two government departments to bring before the House and the committee of the whole for examination of their estimates in that forum. It is then the government's responsibility to designate the two dates upon which those estimates will be heard in the committee of the whole.

The official opposition has in fact now designated the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to appear before the committee of the whole. I wonder if the government House leader could designate on which two dates those two ministers will appear to defend their estimates in the committee of the whole.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, our week devoted to action on the environment and health of Canadians is proving to be a success. We just passed Bill C-33 at report stage with the support of two of the other three parties. This is our bill requiring that by 2010 5% of gasoline and by 2012 2% of diesel fuel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels. It represents an important part of our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. Debate of this bill at third reading will now be able to commence tomorrow.

We have also started to debate two bills to improve the safety of food, consumer products and medical products in Canada.

On Monday we debated Bill C-52, to create the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and yesterday we debated Bill C-51, to modernize the Food and Drugs Act.

We also introduced Bill C-54, to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins. We will continue to debate these bills today and tomorrow.

During these uncertain economic times to the south, our government has led the way on the economy by taking decisive and early action over the past six months to pay down debt, reduce taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and provide targeted support to key industries. In keeping with our strong leadership on the economy, next week will be maintaining a competitive economy week.

We plan to debate the following bills intended to enhance the competitiveness of certain sectors of the Canadian economy: our Bill C-23, at third reading stage, to amend the Canada Marine Act; our Bill C-5, at report stage, on liability in case of a nuclear incident; and our Bill C-14, at second reading stage, to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

We will also debate at second reading Bill C-32, which modernizes the Fisheries Act, Bill C-43, which amends the Customs Act, and Bill C-39, which amends the Canada Grain Act. We will also begin to debate Bill C-46. This is our bill to free western barley producers from the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly by giving them the freedom to market their own products. We will debate at third reading our bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-7.

My friend, the member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader, said that government business and the doing of business in the House of Commons appeared to end on Tuesday. That is because next Wednesday and Thursday will be opposition days, and I would like to allot them as such at this time.

In terms of the question he raised with regard to Bill C-293, which is a private member's bill, I understand it is scheduled to come before the House in early May. At that time the House will have an opportunity to deal with the matter.

In terms of estimates and witnesses appearing before committee of the whole, the government does have to designate those to occur before May 31. Late last night I finally received notice of which two departments were identified and we will soon be advising the House of the dates that will be scheduled for consideration of those matters in committee of the whole.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 10 minutes.

Prior to the question period, the honourable member for Laval had the floor to respond to questions and comments following her remarks. She has one minute remaining.

The hon. member for Yukon has a question, I believe, or a comment.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, just before oral questions I was asking the member about making sure that at committee the plan for the regulations, which would have a big effect, comes out, as well as the plan on the resources to pay for the inspectors and the human resources required.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that my colleagues for Québec and for Verchères—Les Patriotes will ensure that those two points will be given careful consideration when the bill is reviewed in committee.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-52, which proposes changes to the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada.

This bill is long overdue. I say that because of the very high number of product recalls in Canada, so much so that Canadian families no longer know about the safety of the products they are buying. What should be at the forefront of public policy is the safety of Canadians, not the corporate financial bottom line, which has too long been the case. There are trade deals which Canada has signed with other countries which afford no protection for consumers. Not only is there no protection, but protection is being traded for rock bottom prices. We have paid a high price for that.

Recently, the member for Winnipeg North eloquently expressed the years of unsuccessful efforts by members of Parliament to bring real change that would give Canadian consumers confidence in the products they buy. Years of scientific studies have shown that there are many products on the market today that pose unnecessary risks to the health and well-being of our children. Today in the race toward market deregulation, greater access to cheap goods has come at a high price.

I am reminded of the Thomas the Tank Engine wooden railway toys my grandson has been playing with for a number of years. As a young toddler he put them in his mouth and was unnecessarily exposed to a toy contaminated with lead. There are more than 1.5 million of these toys in the United States alone and another 325,000 in other parts of the world, including Canada. I mention these toys to demonstrate that there is currently no uniformity in product standards. By consequence there is no assurance that all these products are safe for use. Although Bill C-52 is a step forward, it does not address the issue of standards in these products.

The risk management approach may target the high risk sources for higher surveillance, but overall, the system depends on reacting to safety problems identified through use after the fact. Some have suggested a stated ban on products containing toxic substances enforced through a pre-entry testing system financed through a service, for example, applied at the border.

I am hoping that at committee we will have the opportunity to invite some researchers and scientists to speak to the real gaps that exist in laboratory testing by many companies. We are going to be looking for an amendment to improve the testing system to improve it. While inspectors have been empowered with greater authority, many of their actions remain optional, even when they believe human health is at risk. We believe this should change.

It is simply not enough for the federal government to say that it will deal decisively with these products that prove toxic and bring forward legislation that states the government may act. There must be both the will and the resources to do so. It is not clear that the Conservative government which preaches deregulation and a hands-off approach to government would put up the resources when it is necessary.

What has been presented in the budget is inadequate to do that job. Any attempt to create legislation around this issue must ensure that we have adequate standards in place and that we are ready to enforce them. Anything less will do very little, if anything, to improve the situation.

Like my colleague from Winnipeg North, I am concerned that the interests of large manufacturers and other companies that may be affected by the legislation are being weighted far more heavily than the health and needs of people around the country.

What is required is a proactive approach from the government and this approach must be both people centred and principled. It seems often to many Canadians that Health Canada has become the handmaiden of industry. In some respects it is losing its reputation as the protector of Canadian health. We must do more to bring about greater scrutiny of imported products as well as greater accountability.

It is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that hazardous materials are not used in the manufacture of products destined for the use of people in our country and to ensure that products are properly tested before they reach the markets.

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is a prime example of a substance that has been in use for many years. It is found in plastic bottles, cans and so on. A recent finding has shown it to have a detrimental effect on health, especially that of babies and children. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are other substances that are ubiquitous in our environment. They are found in common household items and they are known to be toxic to our health and well-being. They have not been regulated by the government. Canadians would expect the government to ensure the safety of these products.

It is alarming that we continue to hear frequent reports of products that contain these and other chemicals that are noxious to our health. I question very seriously whether Bill C-52 has the teeth to seek a ban of products containing chemicals such as those I mentioned.

Bill C-52 certainly represents a step forward but it needs amendment. We cannot fail in our duty to protect the health of Canadians simply to ensure that there are fewer impediments to trade, or because the government is not inclined to introduce new “trade irritants”, as it calls them.

Canadians must be able to count on their government to properly examine and regulate the products that find their way into our stores. For instance, how could we ask parents to ensure that the toys they buy for their children do not contain lead or other toxic substances?

Unfortunately, I do not see anything in this bill that would allow the government to take rapid and decisive action to ban such products that are found to be dangerous. It is even more unfortunate that this lack of commitment on the part of the federal government may mean that more Canadians will suffer as a result of substandards.

We have an opportunity today to act resolutely to reduce the contamination and injuries caused by chemical products in the manufacture of such diverse items as household goods, children’s toys and other consumer products.

In committee, we will be proposing amendments to ensure the safety of products intended for family use. To do that, we need an absolute commitment from the federal government. The government must be ready to take all necessary measures to protect Canadians.

It remains to be seen whether this bill will really regulate the consumer products we see in Canada every day.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-52, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. As we know, our societies are changing. In Quebec, our fondest hope is that families will be able to rear their children in a safe environment.

In 2008, as we are talking here, a year after a major toy recall that I will explain in my presentation, we cannot offer those families any guarantee that the toys and other consumer products made available for children do not contain certain contaminants. This is particularly difficult to understand when it is ultimately a direct effect of globalization.

Our toys and other consumer products intended for children are no longer manufactured in Quebec or Canada. Obviously, that is a choice. With the Conservatives, we see the well-known free market syndrome. That is the Conservative philosophy. Leave things alone. Ultimately, the strong will prevail over the weak in the manufacturing industry.

With globalization, it is no longer the strong in Quebec or Canada who are prevailing over the weak in Quebec or Canada, it is the international giants winning out over our own businesses. How do they manage to win this manufacturing war? Simple: they have their products made in countries where there are no environmental standards, and thus we have the sad fact that today we are having to talk about a bill, Bill C-52, dealing with the safety of consumer products.

It is simple because consumer products are no longer being manufactured and produced in Canada. It is the laissez-faire attitude of the Conservatives, among others, that is largely responsible for this and is the reason why we are having discussions about this bill.

I would like to review a little of the historical context of this problem. As I explained, we have the laissez-faire approach widely adopted by the Conservatives. But there is another side of the coin: there are no constraints when we talk about what is required of manufacturers of products that could be dangerous who fall under federal jurisdiction. We are talking about cosmetics, baby cribs, tents, rugs, and, among other things, toys. There are no rules requiring that they test the products and demonstrate that they are not a threat to the health and safety of consumers. The companies are not required to test the products.

Now, since we do not manufacture them here any more, the products on sale often come from distributors. The manufacturer is no longer here in Canada or Quebec. The distributors sell a product they did not manufacture. There is no rule that requires companies that bring in a product manufactured outside Canada to follow any procedure to verify the content in terms of harmful or dangerous products that might be present in the goods sold.

As long as this law is not in force, consumers have no real protection against the incidents that forced the recall of thousands of toys manufactured in China, for example. There is also the case where banned toxic substances were found in tubes of toothpaste coming from South Africa.

These are recent examples. That is what is surprising, what floors me and surely also floored the Quebeckers who are listening to us, and Canadians, because we should have expected something else. We have gone beyond the year 2000. We should at least be capable of providing the public with a guarantee that what is sold on the store shelves does not contain toxic substances.

To the contrary, in the summer of 2007, thousands of toys made in China were recalled by their manufacturers because they contained lead. We are all very familiar with how Quebec, and Canada as well, fought over lead. At the time, the Bloc Québécois wanted the minister to act without delay. It wanted the safety requirements for dangerous products tightened in order to eliminate the production, promotion and marketing of dangerous products. The Bloc wanted Ottawa to place the onus on manufacturers for inspecting their products and demonstrating that they were not dangerous to consumer health or safety.

That was very clear. There was a huge recall last summer and the media started talking about it. That was in the summer of 2007. It is almost the summer of 2008 now and we certainly felt over the winter that it would still take a while. Once again, the government has shown its apathy. Finally it decided in early 2008 to introduce this bill and try to regulate product safety.

The Conservatives have a stupefying way of doing things. When they see something, they do not act right away, probably so as not to hurt the lobby and their distributor friends. The Conservatives have fewer and fewer friends in manufacturing, of course, because they are being wiped out as 2,000 to 3,000 jobs disappear every week. They have lots of friends, though, among distributors. Just look at their reaction to companies when it comes time to help them.

We saw what happened with summer jobs. The minister in charge was scandalous. The summer jobs in his riding were at Wal-Mart. That is what he wanted. But that is not what happened in Quebec where we had Bloc members. We helped the companies that really needed it. In short, that was his Conservative way of helping business create jobs.

When the manufacturers have finally been wiped out in our ridings, as the Conservatives have done, there will be nothing left but distributors. So what do they do? Once again, the biggest eat the smallest. It is the law of the market, as established by the Conservatives. So there are still Wal-Marts left, and if the minister wanted to help business create summer jobs, it had to be at Wal-Mart. That was his choice.

This is probably what prompted the government not to react in the summer of 2007 when the toys were being recalled.

When there is a recall, product is withdrawn from the shelves of retailers, which are now the Wal-Marts of this world and the big department stores. So they lose money. They had a problem with that. They probably could have been compensated, but they had a problem with taking product off the shelves and returning it. The government decided, therefore, not to act immediately. It decided to give the companies time to do the recall themselves and not impose any standards. So the companies did the recalls. They acted in good faith and without supervision. The government had not established any procedure to follow in anticipation of this problem, even though it could be seen coming.

When manufacturers abandon Canada to set up abroad, especially in developing countries where they do not have to comply with environmental or other standards regarding the products they use in making their consumer goods, it is clear that some day they will be selling items at reduced prices in industrialized countries that are not produced there. Why? Because the materials used are not permitted in many manufacturing sectors in developed countries. Thus, countries such as China, South Africa and others can sell us products that do not comply with the quality standards for consumer products.

That is disturbing. We are trying to help young families. In Quebec, we have established, for example, a network of child care centres. We are trying to establish a balanced concept of work and family that will encourage our young people to have children. Yet, alongside this system of support to families, we allow businesses to distribute products that are dangerous to health. It is completely ridiculous.

We put in place a fine structure that meets people's needs and, in parallel, we torpedo the whole thing because, in the end, someone decided that the free market does not have to guarantee health or safety. That is the reality. Our consumer goods are manufactured in developing countries, where we know very well there is no respect for environmental or quality standards in the materials that go into the products for sale.

Clearly, the products they sell to us wind up causing problems. That is what happened in the summer of 2007: there were recalls. I do not want to name names, but some large retailers buy and sell at discount prices. I have time to mention some examples of the toy recalls. Among others, Mattel had nine toys in its Barbie line that were defective. I have never played with those toys, but there are many young people who do. My daughter enjoyed those toys a lot. Today, as a potential grandfather in a few years, I am concerned.

We did not have these problems at the time my daughter played with those toys because they were made in Canada. However, these goods are now made in developing countries—strictly for economic reasons. I will not be able to even suggest to my grandchildren that they play with the same toys that I bought for my daughter because I will no longer be sure they are not dangerous to their health.

I do not understand why the Conservative Party waited so long. The problems occurred in July. They should have rushed to adopt this bill. There should be a campaign, with lots of publicity, against any sale of these products.

Think of it: in 2008, there is no inspection service for imported goods that our children play with. We are in a process of self-destruction because, for economic reasons, we have decided not to assist our Quebec and Canadian manufacturers and we have given free reign to the free market.

I explained all that earlier and it is important to repeat it for the men and women listening to us. In a free market, the big swallow the little. This was certainly how it was in our communities in Quebec and surely in the rest of Canada too, where larger companies buy up smaller ones.

Now that we have globalization, though, it is international companies that buy up names. We saw it with Crocs, a Quebec idea that was bought up by the Americans, who finally decided two weeks ago to end production in Quebec because they wanted to transfer their operations to emerging countries where they could make more money.

They are not even trying to save a company that is losing money. These are companies that are already making a profit but want to double it because they are listed on the stock exchange and want to give their shareholders more money. All that the chairmen of these companies want is a bigger bonus at the end of the year. Ultimately, they could not care less about the health of the people who buy their products.

I am very happy not to be a Conservative. That is how these people think. I am worried that the Quebec members of the Conservative Party think like that as well. It is totally absurd, but that is how it is when people are illogical.

If the Conservatives were logical, they would have wanted to introduce this bill back in July 2007 and would have immediately required all imported products to be inspected, at least those intended for children.

Even if we members of Parliament are willing to consume products that are life threatening, I would not wish that on the citizens who elected us and we should at least protect the lives and health of our children. At least we would be doing that for future generations.

The Conservative approach, though, is to emphasize profit at all cost, regardless of what happens. They want that dividend in their pockets every three months, and who cares if the rest of the world around them is starving.

I have a very hard time with this. That is why I was anxious to speak to Bill C-52. Is it a good bill that deserves attention? It is a step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois definitely wants it discussed in committee to ensure that the Conservatives do not just set up a monitoring and inspection system. If they do not provide the money and personnel needed to do the job, not much will change. There will be a law, but no one will be there to enforce it because the Conservatives decided not to provide the necessary budget.

Once again, they want to protect their distributor friends like the Wal-Marts of this world. We have to watch out for that. It is a danger. It is not enough just to pass legislation: we have to make sure that the budget follows.

This is disturbing. It happened in July 2007, less than a year ago. They waited until January 2008. The Americans, and particularly the Republicans, who are like the Conservatives and leave the free market alone, responded faster than the Conservatives. The world must have gone crazy. It is probably the urge to make a profit at all cost for their pals that made them not respond quickly. That is why, for one thing, the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties are making sure that we do not just enact Bill C-52, but that a whole range of services is put in place, including mandatory inspection of all products sold. This has to be done.

It is not enough to say in a bill that products must not contain contaminants like lead and so on. We can certainly list them, but with all the products arriving in Vancouver by boat, we need to set up a monitoring system. As we have seen, billions of dollars are being invested in the infrastructure project to build the Asia-Pacific gateway, but nothing will be spent on the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes corridor gateway. I am in a good position to talk about this because I sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

We are well aware that this is because all of the products come from Asia and the emerging countries. The doors are wide open to them. We have to rebuild all of the port infrastructures and build new rail lines to bring the goods in. The only thing we are forgetting is that what we are bringing in and what we are putting on the shelves, particularly when it is intended for children, has been produced with contaminants. This makes no sense.

The Conservatives at least have to be consistent. It is not enough to import products because our distributors are demanding them and the Wal-Marts of this world want stock to sell. We have to be able to make sure that the things intended for our children do not threaten their health and do not contain products we have already banned here.

We will vote for this bill. The Bloc Québécois will be extremely vigilant, to make sure that a whole system is set up to implement the provisions of this bill, including the inspection system. This system will require manufacturers in other countries to guarantee that their products are compliant and send product samples before the products are shipped here, so that we can ensure that they do not contain any contaminants. Then, when the products arrive en masse, inspections will have to be carried out, because manufacturers could send us product samples and then ship other types of products. They may have had products manufactured in two or three different locations, have a distribution centre in an emerging country or have products that come from all over. That is how things work.

We have to be logical. We know that products are no longer made here, so we have to monitor the whole system and conduct random inspections. Inspectors can go to the port, open the boxes and analyze the product. We need to do something for ourselves once in a while and stop thinking about our wallets and who contributed to the Conservative campaign fund. We need to think of ourselves, our children and future generations. We should be proud to stand up in this House and vote for a bill like Bill C-52. That is my message for the Conservatives, because they have no choice.

They know that the Republicans in the United States acted faster than they did. We need to make sure in committee that the Conservatives support the amendments the Bloc Québécois will make, so that we have the money needed for a comprehensive inspection system. One day, our children will thank us for voting for Bill C-52 in this House.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech. I would like to ask him a question.

We know that in Canada alone there are approximately 5 million people who smoke cigarettes. We also know that 35,000 deaths a year are caused by cigarettes or by the indirect effects of cigarette smoke, and that these deaths could be prevented if we imposed more restrictions on tobacco producers. We know that tobacco is banned in a number of provinces and in many public places.

However, contrary to all of the other restricted products that are covered by regulation, Bill C-52 would make tobacco the only product exempted by a section of the act itself. All other exemptions are by regulation.

Does the member not find it a bit odd that in Bill C-52, the Conservative government thought to add a clause exempting tobacco, thus allowing manufacturers of tobacco products to continue to produce those products without worry, even though the government knows that health care costs will continue to mount if we do not pay more attention to these products? Think about the new cigarillos that are on the market and that will carry no health warning for another six years.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval for her question.

What she says is very important because it concerns the whole principle of adopting the bill so that it can be sent to committee for improvement. At that point, the minister clearly would have to answer this question: why have tobacco products been excluded?

Surely, no one will be surprised that a party such as the Bloc Québécois is calling for tobacco products to be included in this legislation. Increasingly, products containing imported materials are found on store shelves. It is no secret. Tobacco manufacturing has practically disappeared—in Quebec at any rate. There are a few remnants, but not much.

That means that while more tobacco products are being sold, the contents are not produced here. The material comes from somewhere else. What does it contain? Once again, the Conservatives probably know, and that is why they decided to exclude it from the legislation. However, this is the kind of thing that we must be able to improve. We have to make sure that they answer our questions and that the Conservatives do not delay.

I agree with my colleague. If the standards are the same for all the companies that manufacture these tobacco products or all the suppliers, I would hope the companies would be more comfortable in saying the products have been inspected; that what they buy comes from abroad, that their products have passed every test and the products they sell are what they are supposed to be.

Tobacco products will always be harmful to health—I do not need to belabour the point. I have never smoked in my life, so perhaps I have a chance. Some people who smoke have great difficulty in quitting. I wish them a great deal of strength to stop. If there were no more tobacco products at all; if there were no more buyers; none would be sold any more. Once again, we understand that it is difficult for some people. We want to offer our moral support.

At least, we must be able to guarantee that what is sold on our shelves does not contain unknown dangerous material. We know that there are recognized dangerous substances in cigarettes; but there are questions about other things that were used in their manufacture because, after all, tobacco production is no longer a significant activity in Quebec.