Statement made on 13 December 2010 by Senator James Cowan
Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition):
Honourable senators, I wish to make a few comments at this stage in our proceedings, not so much on the substance of the bill but on the way in which we have handled it. I suggest there are some lessons which all of us, but particularly the government, can learn from the legislative process of this bill and its predecessor, Bill C-6.
We all agree that Canadians need a new consumer products safety law. Everyone agrees that the provisions set out in the Hazardous Products Act are outdated and fail to adequately protect Canadians. Legislation to modernize and update the regime has been in preparation for a number of years, beginning under a Liberal government.
This should not be a partisan issue, but rather a matter of parliamentarians of all political parties in both houses working constructively to produce the best legislative and regulatory regime. That is our Canadian parliamentary tradition at its best, and we in the Senate have our part to play.
The first bill that was introduced was Bill C-52, tabled in the other place on April 8, 2008. It had companion legislation, Bill C-51, which would have introduced amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. Those amendments were quite controversial. Indeed, a significant proportion of the strong opposition to the bill before us today seems to have arisen because of confusion amongst Canadians as to whether Bill C-36 contains provisions that were contained in Bill C-51, and specifically, whether it impacts on the sale of natural health products. It does not.
Both bills, Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, died when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in September 2008. Bill C-52, the original precursor of Bill C-36, had been referred to committee in that place. Bill C-51, the bill dealing with amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, was still being debated at second reading.
To date, the government has not sought to reintroduce the provisions of Bill C-51. Liberal senators tried to learn the status of that legislation at committee without success. When officials testified before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on Bill C-36, those officials would only say it is the government's decision as to when it will introduce legislation — and, of course, it is.
I suspect many Canadians' fears would have been allayed if the government had been more forthcoming about its plans. No doubt, the government's known penchant for secrecy and history of burying controversial clauses in bills have not helped the progress of this legislation. Certainly, it is clear from the emails and letters from numbers of Canadians that all of us received that Canadians are deeply concerned that this bill will impact on their access to natural health remedies. As I said earlier, it does not.
Meanwhile, as I have also said, Bill C-52, the consumer products safety bill, died with the 2008 election, and it was some months before the government reintroduced it. No bill was reintroduced in the first session following the election. Honourable senators will recall that that session was cut short when the Prime Minister again prorogued Parliament, this time to avoid a non-confidence motion.
On January 29, 2009, the government reintroduced the bill, this time numbered Bill C-6. There were several months of further delay before the government brought the legislation forward for debate. Nevertheless, eventually it made its way through the legislative process in the House of Commons and reached the Senate on June 16, 2009.
After second reading, the bill was sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The committee, as is its role, closely examined the provisions of the bill, listened to the views of experts and other interested Canadians who came to testify about the bill, and considered various amendments to address the expressed concern and to improve the bill.
In the end, the committee reported the bill with several amendments. However, that report containing the amendments was defeated in the Senate amidst allegations that the proposed amendments would gut the bill. Several other amendments proposed by my colleagues at third reading were adopted and the bill, as amended, was returned to the House of Commons on December 15, 2009, almost a year ago today.
Unfortunately, the House of Commons had recessed by that point; and then, as we know, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament again on December 30, killing the bill again. To date, then, for those who are keeping count, this bill has been delayed by three prorogations by the Prime Minister.
Parliament returned to session on March 3, 2010. However, it was not until June 9 that the minister reintroduced the proposed consumer product safety act, this time relabelled as Bill C-36, the bill we are dealing with today.
Once again, the government delayed bringing the bill forward for debate, this time waiting until October. Lo and behold, despite the minister's previous protestations against the Senate's amendments, many of those changes had been incorporated into the bill, albeit without credit or attribution. Evidently, upon examination, the government realized that those amendments did not gut the bill after all.
A number of other amendments suggested by the Senate in its committee report, the ones that were defeated when the bill was reported here, for some reason — and these were primarily technical amendments — were not reflected in Bill C-36. Honourable senators, I find it strange and rather disconcerting that the government had not caught and corrected these rather basic mistakes in their legislation, even after we had brought those mistakes to their attention.
Be that as it may, after we pointed out the mistakes again to government representatives, the government introduced the necessary amendments at committee stage in the other place. As a result, the bill which arrived here on November 2 was a significantly improved version of Bill C-6 — not perfect, but certainly better than before.
In the view of many observers, it was a significant advance over the provisions of the Hazardous Products Act that it was designed to replace. The minister herself acknowledged the positive and valuable role of the Senate in improving the bill. In her words, the bill was stronger, clearer and better as a result of the Senate's work.
As is our practice and responsibility, after second reading, the bill was sent again to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for study. Honourable senators, my expectation — and I think the expectation of most of those who are following the legislative process — was that while there would be some witnesses who were opposed to some or perhaps all of the provisions of the bill and some who would prefer further amendments, there was sufficient overall support for the bill to permit it to move through the committee report stage, to third reading and on to Royal Assent with a minimum amount of controversy.
Unfortunately, I was wrong. I underestimated the appetite of this government to politicize everything, even the basic protection of Canadians with a new consumer protection product safety law.
The first sign of trouble appeared when the government majority on the steering committee moved to restrict the witness list; in particular, it refused to allow several critics of the bill to appear. This stubborn refusal fuelled the fires of opposition and we all have been deluged with a virtual tsunami of emails protesting, not only what the Senate is doing, but how we were doing it. All of us, and those who follow our work on CPAC, are aware of the scenes of uncharacteristic testiness and partisanship that marked the committee hearings on this bill.
In my view, honourable senators, most or all of this rancour could have been avoided if the government had demonstrated a little flexibility in its approach to the witness list and a little more patience in its approach to the bill itself. There were Canadians who wanted to be heard and many more Canadians who wanted those voices heard. That is the democratic way. Listening to Canadians and reflecting on their views and concerns is what has allowed us to improve this legislation before and is what we should have been allowed to do this time. That is our job. By slamming the door on those witnesses, we have failed Canadians and we have failed to do the job that under the Constitution we were called upon to do.
Honourable senators, the government repeatedly delayed this legislation, waiting for months to bring it forward in the other place and then killing it over and over with its three prorogations. Yet the Conservative members of the committee were unwilling to allow even one more committee hearing to hear from critics on this bill.
Once again, this is a government that demands "my way or the highway," that refuses to listen to criticism and that only wants to silence dissent.
Had the government adopted a more reasonable and enlightened attitude, we would find the tone of this debate quite different. Instead of criticism from colleagues and abuse from observers, we could have pointed to Bill C-36 as an example of Parliament working as it should; of the Senate doing what it does best, — careful study of legislation and giving Canadians an opportunity to be heard before providing its advice to the elected House of Commons; and of the government listening to reasoned and evidence-based suggestions for improvements to its legislation with the result of better legislation for Canadians.
Honourable senators, this was an opportunity lost. I regret that fact and I hope that all of us, and particularly the government majority, will learn a lesson.
On a final note, I want to repeat what I have said many times since I became Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. We on this side take our role as an opposition very seriously. We are committed to fulfilling our constitutional responsibility. We will support legislative measures that we believe are in the best interests of Canada. We will oppose and we will seek where possible to improve measures that in our view are contrary to that interest. However, let there be no doubt in anyone's mind: We will not be bullied by the government that now has the majority of members in this place.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Please click here to read the full text of this debate