Luc Malo

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

It is true that when we were studying Bill C-6, some witnesses appeared before us to discuss that particular aspect. During the health committee's work last spring, we spent only one meeting examining the whole issue of nanotechnology, its growing use and the repercussions this new technology can have on human health. This is definitely something that needs to be examined further in committee. I did not get the impression that any parliamentarians, from any of the parties, were against the idea of examining these matters further.

Of course, when we were studying Bill C-6, some people expressed certain concerns that were not addressed in the bill, but at that stage, it was important to update the 40-year-old legislation. So this bill updates the legislation. The committee and this Parliament will have every opportunity, I have no doubt, to make other improvements through other means. For instance, the member mentioned counterfeit products. There is also the question of labelling, in order to ensure that when consumers purchase a product, they know exactly what is in it. I think all parliamentarians agree on that issue.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we are now at third reading of Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. We were debating it at second reading not even a month ago. My colleagues in committee really worked together to properly study this bill and to agree on amendments that would clarify certain aspects related to the protection of personal information. Clarifying these aspects is absolutely necessary, since the public expects the government, institutions and the legislation to ensure that their personal information is protected.

I cannot help but smile though. We went through the whole process two times already, the first time with Bill C-52 and the second time with Bill C-6. I have to wonder whether, now that we are so close to the goal, the Prime Minister will call an election or prorogue Parliament. That is what he did the last two times.

The members opposite find that funny. I think that the Minister of Health will talk to the Prime Minister to ensure that nothing like that happens and that Bill C-36 will make it through. The minister keeps saying, as we have been doing, that the current act is 40 years old and that it is time to update it. The Auditor General produced a report four years ago that revealed several problems and also highlighted the risks related to consumer products. We cannot wait any longer to move forward with this bill.

Canada is not the only country to be tightening up its legislation. I want to talk about what happened south of the border, in the United States. On August 14, 2008, the then president, George W. Bush, signed the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act. This act set new, modern standards and strengthened the legislation on toy safety. Thus, the American agency responsible for overseeing the safety of consumer products was given measures that enabled it to have better control over toys. This legislation assigned more responsibilities, expanded authority and granted related powers to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the CPSC.

Since 2009, the agency has gradually been requiring that manufacturers and importers certify that their products meet the new standards, requiring that companies have their products tested by an independent third party and imposing harsher sanctions for non-compliance with product safety requirements. The law also proposed an increase in the agency's budget every year until 2015, as well as an increase in staff of at least 500 employees by 2013 in order to effectively enforce the new safety standards.

On September 10, 2009, the chair of the CPSC, Inez Tenenbaum, testified before the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, saying that she intends to make her agency a world leader in consumer protection.

With that statement in mind, I hope that it is also the government's intention, following the passage of this new bill, to see to it that we, too, are leaders in terms of consumer protection by ensuring that our consumers are buying safe products.

Throughout my speech, I will refer to elements that have been included in the American legislation to ensure that there is no shortage of money or inspectors to enforce this law. That is what we also need to see on this side of the border to ensure that we can do the important work of strengthening the current law, which dates back 40 years.

Now I would like to read the bill summary because it serves to explain the scope of this new legislation, which I hope will be passed quickly.

This enactment modernizes the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada. It creates prohibitions with respect to the manufacturing, importing, selling, advertising, packaging and labelling of consumer products, including those that are a danger to human health or safety. In addition, it establishes certain measures that will make it easier to identify whether a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety and, if so, to more effectively prevent or address the danger. It also creates application and enforcement mechanisms. This enactment also makes consequential amendments to the Hazardous Products Act.

That is the scope of the bill.

At second reading, I made several statements and asked a number of other questions that must be answered by meeting with officials and talking to the minister so we can be sure this bill really meets the needs and expectations we expressed when we supported Bill C-52 in principle a few years ago.

Speaking of what led to Bill C-36, there was Bill C-6, and before that, Bill C-52. The same bill has come up under three different numbers. I would invite those watching to reread my speech at second reading because I reviewed all of this to explain why the Conservative government took so long to bring this bill forward.

As I said earlier, the committee members worked well together. At this point, I would like to thank my colleague from Repentigny, who worked with me to ensure the Bloc Québécois' presence in committee and who asked excellent questions. Among the answers to the questions the committee had are some questions from the member for Repentigny and the answers provided by officials who appeared before the committee.

When we discussed Bill C-6, a number of people wrote to us to express their concerns about whether Bill C-36 was constitutionally acceptable. I will read the answer provided by Diane Labelle, general counsel, legal services unit, Health Canada, during her appearance before the committee:

As you are well aware, the Minister of Justice is tasked with reviewing each bill in order to ensure that it properly reflects the government's obligations pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That review was done by the minister and the Department of Justice. Moreover, a bill is also examined to see whether it is well founded, i.e., whether Parliament does indeed have the power to adopt such a bill. In fact, we can confirm that we have conducted such a review and that the bill falls within Parliament's authority regarding criminal matters and properly reflects the government's charter obligations.

Another concern that some of our constituents had a number of questions about was the fact that Bill C-36 could apply to natural health products. They did not want the bill to regulate natural health products any differently. That is clear in subclause 4(3) of the bill, which I referred to in my speech at second reading. I would like to quote it again:

For greater certainty, this Act does not apply to natural health products as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Natural Health Products Regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act.

I thought that was relatively clear in the bill, but I asked the government officials about this anyway. I will now quote myself, which is unusual, but I will in this case:

Could there be a way around this provision so that the bill applies to natural health products?

I was referring to Bill C-36. This is the reply from Athana Mentzelopoulos, the director general of consumer product safety directorate at Health Canada:

No, there is no way. There is a way, but it would have to come back before Parliament to be amended so that the scope of the legislation would be changed—for example, to remove the provision in subclause 4(3). So yes, there is a way, but certainly it would be the purview of parliamentarians to do so.

In response, I asked another question.

But the version we have before us, i.e., Bill C-36, in no way affects natural health products. Is that correct?

In response, Diane Labelle added the following explanation, addressing the chair of the Standing Committee on Health:

...evidently, neither the Governor in Council nor the minister could amend the wording of the legislation. Parliament alone has that authority. Therefore, the wording of the legislation cannot be amended as regards natural health products.

What we can deduce from this is that if Parliament wanted the bill to apply to natural health products, a new bill would have to be introduced in Parliament to amend subclause 4(3), as Ms. Mentzelopoulos indicated.

Another question we raised a number of times during consideration of Bill C-6 and Bill C-36 is whether the number of inspectors is sufficient. As I was saying earlier, the U.S. has truly taken responsibility and considerably increased the number of inspectors. They want to ensure that their legislation has enough teeth to be properly enforced. To the Bloc Québécois, it is clear that we cannot leave it up to industry alone to ensure that the products it puts on the market are safe within the meaning of the law. In committee, we asked whether the number of inspectors was sufficient, and this is what Athana Mentzelopoulos said:

Essentially, there was a recognition that we needed more resources amongst our cadre of inspectors. We have done the analysis to ascertain, for example, where we have.... We want to go where the work is, essentially.

In my own travels recently, as the new DG, I visited with the regions. We do not necessarily have a uniform number of inspectors associated with each region. In British Columbia there is a lot of volume with imports, and we need to make sure we are resourced appropriately. It is the same in Ontario; a considerable extent of industry is found in Ontario. Obviously we would have—and this is the case—more resources in Ontario than we might find in areas where, for example, there is less industry, less import activity. In Quebec as well we have obviously larger numbers; it correlates to going where the work is and making sure that we are addressing the need.

Robert Ianiro, Director of the Consumer Product Safety Bureau, Health Canada, provided the following information in response to our question.

I think part of the answer also is that we've been focusing a lot around solely increasing our capacity of inspectors, which is clearly very important. We are doubling that capacity. By the fifth year of the action plan, 2012-13, in fact we will have overall doubled the entire complement in consumer product safety. We actually will have increased by about 125 employees.

I think it's important to recognize that we also are hiring more analysts to do testing and verification at our laboratory. With the introduction of the general prohibition, there's going to be a lot more research, hazard evaluations, hazard assessments, risk assessments. We're bringing in mandatory incident reporting. We need to have people sitting behind computers triaging the data, analyzing the data. These are all individuals beyond and in addition to the inspectors.

So it's a fairly broad complement of new employees. Inspectors are obviously very critical. We have those who would be devoted to risk assessment, those devoted to standards development. I think also a very critical piece, given the post-market regime of consumer product safety in Canada and worldwide, is the critical importance of outreach. There are also resources and new staff devoted to outreach. That includes outreach to industry in terms of understanding their obligations, as well as outreach to consumers, since we all have a role to play. As regulator, obviously, as government we have a role to play. Consumers have a role to play. Obviously manufacturers and industry have a role to play.

So it's much, much broader than just inspectors.

Based on Mr. Ianiro's comments, it is clear that we will stay on top of this issue. We will make sure that it is not government funding that determines the number of employees responsible for inspections and for proper implementation of the bill, but vice versa. And once we know what is needed on the ground in order to do the work correctly, we need to ensure that the division carrying out the organization and implementation of inspections has enough staff.

As I said earlier, the entire burden cannot be put on the industry. It is obviously in the industry's interest to not have any products recalled or any nasty incidents reported, but the government has the primary responsibility to ensure that this legislation is adopted by Parliament—and quickly, I hope—so that it can be correctly enforced.

I will not have time to talk about two other questions that we had asked about the government's interpretation of the preamble, notably concerning the precautionary principle.

In any case, I would invite citizens who wish to enquire about these answers to do so by visiting the parliamentary website and consulting the transcripts of the committee debates concerning Bill C-36.

[Sexual Violence Against Women in Armed Conflict, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we are marking the 10th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which calls for an end to sexual violence against women in armed conflict and for a decision-making role for women in peace processes.

Despite efforts by the international community, 10 years later, women are still victims of sexual violence in armed conflict. Rape is a destructive weapon of war that ruins the lives of thousands of women. Unfortunately, those responsible for rape often are not brought to justice.

It is important to promote and support the active, meaningful participation of women at all levels of decision-making. The Canadian government must support NGOs and encourage them to promote women's rights, as resolution 1325 calls for.

In closing, I would like to commend the courage of the Congolese women, headed by Olive Lembe Kabila, the President's wife, who demonstrated on October 17 in eastern Congo to denounce the sexual violence committed against them.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I could start by teasing the minister and saying that the two previous incarnations of this bill never made it through, one because the Prime Minister decided to trigger an election, and the other because he decided to prorogue the House. But I will not do that, because we are finally at the point of getting this bill past third reading in the House, once again.

I would like to come back to clause 37, which deals with regulations. This is an important clause that gives rather extensive discretionary powers to the minister.

How will the minister use these discretionary powers, and does she plan on determining whether or not a product is dangerous? What criteria will she set for recalling one item rather than another? How will she decide not to recall a product for some reason? I would like the minister herself to provide more clarification on these points.

[Alzheimer's Disease, October 28th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, following the publication of the World Alzheimer Report by Alzheimer's Disease International on September 21, the member for Edmonton—Leduc moved the current motion. This report paints a startling picture of how much Alzheimer's disease costs health care systems.

I would first like to mention some statistics. According to this report, there are 35.6 million people in world with Alzheimer's and other dementia and 120,000 in Quebec alone. The number of people affected worldwide will balloon to 65.7 million in 2030 and 115.4 million in 2050. In terms of financial impact, the global cost of dementia will exceed 1% of the world's GDP, or $604 billion U.S., in 2010.

The motion being discussed today deals with the growing costs faced by public health systems in order to treat these issues. It is clear that the aging population and Alzheimer's have significant economic impact. But above and beyond the costs, I feel that the little known, often underestimated human and social impacts are even more important.

Isolation, exclusion and loss of independence are the factors that must guide and inspire government policies. It is also a question of the right to dignity and compassion as well as the emotional and psychological burdens that these issues cause for family and loved ones.

These people need all the compassion and support the government can give them through its policies and programs. The loss of memory and autonomy, changes in behaviour and communication methods: thousands of lives are turned upside down by Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. The difficulties associated with these kinds of illnesses are tremendous, not only for the people who have the disease, but also for their family caregivers, friends and loved ones who provide continuous care.

According to the Canadian Medical Association, 80% of all home care provided to seniors is provided by unpaid family caregivers. It has also been proven that the more incapacitated the patient is, the higher the risk of stress for the caregiver. That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that tax credits for family caregivers must be improved and the eligibility criteria must be relaxed.

Considering our aging population and the tremendous pressure this will put on families and on the health care system, we need to adequately recognize the support being provided by these brave, determined men and women who dedicate so much time and energy to caring for their loved ones who are ill.

Improving the guaranteed income supplement would be another good way to recognize that the poorest seniors stricken with this condition have a right to dignity.

The mere mention of Alzheimer's disease is frightening, and I am sure my colleagues will agree that, sooner or later, we will all have to deal with it directly or indirectly.

According to a report by a committee of experts responsible for developing Quebec's Alzheimer's plan, one in five baby boomers will develop this disease. Committee chair Dr. Howard Bergman identified seven priority actions to guide the Government of Quebec in developing its national Alzheimer's plan.

Before going into more detail, I would like to reassure my colleagues who heard me say “a national plan”. When the Bloc Québécois talks about a national plan, we are talking about the Quebec nation, which, through its National Assembly, has the power and responsibility to develop care and care delivery plans for Quebeckers.

Dr. Bergman identified seven priority actions to mobilize all Alzheimer's-related sectors. The purpose of these seven actions is to promote synergy to better meet the needs of and support loved ones, families and, of course, those with the disease. Without going into too much detail, I would like to list some of these actions.

One of the first actions is to raise awareness and mobilize. Public organizations, such as the Federation of Quebec Alzheimer Societies, often undertake this role. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the people, volunteers and employees alike, who work to make things easier for those with the disease and their families. These people deserve our deepest admiration.

Another action identified by Dr. Bergman is to provide access to personalized, coordinated assessment and treatment services for people with Alzheimer's and their family or informal caregivers. If the federal government wants to address the rising costs to health care systems of treating these diseases, as indicated in the motion, the best way to enable Quebec and the provinces to handle these rising costs is obviously to correct the fiscal imbalance.

That would provide Quebec and the provinces with stable funding, thereby enabling them to improve services to the public and ensure that their citizens receive adequate health care.

At this point, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc. When I asked him if he believed that this motion placed government actions within the context of the Canadian Parliament's legislative jurisdiction, he invited me to move an amendment to his motion to clarify that aspect. I thank him for that.

I therefore move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words “the government” the following: “, with regard to matters under the Parliament of Canada's legislative jurisdiction,”.

[Alzheimer's Disease, October 28th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member from Edmonton—Leduc. In his motion, he referred to programs and policies that the federal government should implement, according to specific criteria, to combat Alzheimer's disease.

In referring to these programs and policies, is the member talking only about those that the government can implement in matters under the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada?

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would not want to hazard a guess as to why the U.S. Congress has not decided to go ahead with this free trade agreement, but it is clear that countries should not be in a hurry to sign free trade agreements. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the Conservative government is in a hurry. It is rushing to sign bilateral agreements with a number of countries in order to head off other countries that are doing the same thing.

As I said in my speech, instead of focusing its efforts on this sort of thing, the government needs to sit down with other countries and really do what it takes to ensure that major multilateral agreements see the light of day, for the sake of Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The member mentioned a coalition. I see more of a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives to help major corporations avoid paying their taxes. These taxes would help us better redistribute the wealth and would give our citizens even better lives.

In response to his question, as I said in my speech, the Bloc Québécois is a strong supporter of multilateral agreements. The Bloc Québécois was in favour of signing the North American Free Trade Agreement, and is in favour of a free trade agreement with the European Union. These agreements involve several parties, who will all reap the benefits.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the NDP member from Ottawa talking about the importance of a multilateral approach in trade agreements to ensure some degree of fairness in the agreements and to ensure that they benefit all parties involved, which is quite a departure from the sort of bilateral agreements this government wants to rush through.

The Bloc Québécois has always been very clear. Protectionism will not help the Quebec economy because it is based on the manufacturing industry. In its budgets, the government has been trying to limit the development and growth of manufacturing businesses by introducing policies that favour other sectors, such as the western oil industry. We object to such ploys because everyone knows that the Quebec economy is based primarily on manufacturing, and therefore on exports. International exports account for one-third of Quebec's GDP. If we include all interprovincial exports, over half of our GDP depends on the growth of our manufacturing industry.

We therefore cannot support any sort of protectionist initiatives. That is why, when we learned that the American administration had decided to include protectionist measures in its stimulus plan, some Bloc Québécois members rushed to Washington, the American capital. They urged the American government and all partners to stay away from protectionist measures because they are harmful not only to our economy, but to theirs as well. A great deal of trade takes place between Quebec and the United States and between Canada and the United States. The fabrication of manufactured goods often begins on one side of the border and is completed on the other side. The value added to goods increases on the other side of the border, and those goods come and go. We have an integrated manufacturing industry. The Bloc Québécois therefore vehemently opposes any sort of protectionist measures.

However, the common good and the ability of governments to redistribute wealth, protect the environment and culture, and provide their citizens with basic public services, such as health care and education, must always be the basis for decisions about trade rules. If the WTO's Doha round is compromised and the free trade area of the Americas is currently stagnating, is it because the negotiations were flawed? Of course. It does not mean that the multilateral system is ineffective. It comes down to some partners around the table having the impression that they will come up short. Some parties want to have more benefits and, consequently, the other parties run the risk of coming up short.

When negotiating, it is important to always bear in mind that agreements must be fair to all partners and that each party must secure the benefits it had hoped for by signing the agreements.

In the case of multilateral agreements, if the government made more of an effort around the table to arrive at just and fair compromises, we would not be in a position today of watching it rush to sign bilateral agreements with just about anyone in order to bypass others who would like to sign agreements. I do not believe we should be doing this. The Bloc Québécois' position is that it is important that efforts be directed to negotiating multilateral agreements.

That is why the Bloc Québécois was the first party in this House to call for an agreement to be signed with the European Union. This agreement is still being questioned today because it is not clear whether the government is serious about defending what is important to us at the table, namely cultural exemption and supply management. Fundamental requirements still need to be central to the debates, discussions and negotiations because there are fundamental aspects at the heart of a society's economy or identity. For example, supply management is fundamental to Quebec agriculture. There is also cultural exemption. I like repeating that in this House. Quebec is a nation where culture, the arts, literature and, essentially, everything that is at the centre of our collective identity as Quebeckers, are important to us. We want to preserve our identity for generations to come because that is what defines us as a nation. So ends that aside.

As my colleague from the New Democratic Party said in his speech, when agreements are negotiated, they have to benefit the country's economy, or the nation's, in the case of the Quebec nation. When the Bloc Québécois assesses potential agreements presented to it, one of the questions it needs answered is whether these agreements can benefit Quebec's economy.

That being said, with Panama there is another problem to add to the debate: the fact that this country is on the grey list of tax havens. None of us likes to hear in the news that companies are not paying their fair share of taxes because they shelter their capital in tax havens in various countries that protect them from having to fulfill their social responsibility. It is clear that ordinary citizens do not enjoy the same privileges that the government unfortunately continues to give rich companies to save them from paying some of the tax on their profits.

As far as Panama is concerned, I have here an article from Le Devoir, from September 29, 2010, entitled “Lutte internationale contre l'évasion fiscale—Les mauvais élèves sont montrés du doigt”. It is about singling out the offenders in the international fight against tax evasion. The subtitle refers to the release of the international forum's first report card.

This text from Agence France-Presse explained that, following a preliminary review by the WTO, Panama would probably be on the WTO list of offenders. I believe this needs to be taken into account.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, all provinces should have the means necessary to ensure that the people for whom they are responsible have access to the best possible health care.

During the 2006 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to limit the federal spending power. He did so precisely because it is perfectly normal that, in the areas over which Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction—and I am not just talking about health, all initiatives should be going in the same direction with no overlap and with no programs working at cross-purposes. That is perfectly normal.

The problem, however, is that the Prime Minister made the promise and never acted on it. We simply hope that he will support this motion and that he will follow through on the promise that he made during the election campaign. The Bloc Québécois has always been clear on the matter because it is Quebec's traditional position. As I said, even since the days of Maurice Duplessis, we have been asking the federal government to mind its own business.