Senate Committee hearings on Bill C-6, the Consumer Products Safety Act, continue this afternoon.  One witness is scheduled to appear: Carol Osmond, Vice President, Policy for the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporter.

4.15 pm:  Meeting a new witness always peaks one's curiosity -- you never know what you're going to get.  And while throngs of media are not outside the door, one lonely photographer is in the room .... ooops he left .... well, there you go! So let's see what Ms. Osmond will have to say. 

4.30 pm:  Carol is now giving us an overview of the mandate of the association.  She reminds us that imports represent 55 % of household consumer products in Canada.  They've been closley watching the bill + have been consulting with Health Canada.  Huzzah, while they are generally supportive, they have some concerns!

First up - section 14 has unreasonable timelines, that would overburden Health Canada. 

Secondly section 30 -Mandatory recall orders should only be given to the Minister.....ALSO, companies should be given a chance to take action themselves.  Several sections that give Minister powers with a broad scope without procedural safe guards are also a concern.

Well Carol, welcome to the committee!  Now let's hear more.

4.35 pm: Carol brings up the buzz topic of protectionist measures that could be a conscquence if we let this legislation pass.  Carol is telling us a story about her previous experience with contract writing.  She has everyone captivated by her remarks.  Carol contends that a contract is your life line.  You have to anticipate problems and incorporate measures to deal with those problems as the contract is being written.  She agrees that legislation has to factor potential issues, but in the case of this legislation, the permissions are too broad.

4.45 pm:  Senator Banks now has the mic.  As always, Senator Banks has an excellent grasp of the bill before him.  He is discussing the fact that there seems to be no recourse for companies if they have been found to be in violation of the Act.  Carol agrees, they are not pleased with this portion, and suggests that due dilligence should be written into the bill.  Senator Banks agrees that the intent is to make products safe for consumers but , he muses, are we going about this in the right way?

Precisely! Everyone wants a safe world, but is this how we make it happen?

4.55 pm:  Is Christmas in the air?  Because once again we're talking about toys  ....

Senator Callbeck is asking about Carol's claim that the reporting mechanisms are too strict.  To summarize Carol's comments,  companies need time to review the complaints and take appropriate measures.  While we live in a global, highly communicative world, it takes time for information to work through the channels, especially relative to the size of a company and amount of their product on the shelves.  10 days may not be enough time and difficult for companies to comply with.
 

5:08 pm:  Senator Cordy just shared a story about people cooking pork chops in toasters, then the toaster catching fire and complaints about unsafe consumer products.  Yikes!  This is obviously not a defect with the product -- just a (the Senator hesitates as she searches for an appropriate word) -- just a STUPID stupid action!  So is this what the legislation encourages by way of reports?  Carol seems to agree that it should not. 

Now here's a fascinating factoid: she says that the US legislation actually provides for the company to assess whether there's product defect before it's reported.  Now that would make more sense.  So, I ask you, if the Canadian government is so madly keen to live up to international standards, why on earth can't it incorporate some of the more sensible provisions of foreign legislation???? 

5:20 pm:  Senator Dyck is now engaging with Carol: should Health Canada have a definition of risk? Both agree that risk in the consumer product world is relative to whom the product is directed.  For example, products for adults likely carry far more risk than those for children.  Carol does not seem to be cottoning on to this line of questions.  Well, understandable really.  Senator Dyck is a PhD (neurological chemistry, to be precise).  She knows all about risk assessments.  Unlike lawyers (which Carol seems to be).  Maybe that's why I've never heard any roadkill jokes about brainiacs (and heard far too many about lawyers, thank you very much.  OK, OK -- full disclosure -- I, too, am an LLB)

Back to the hearing now ... I don't know about you, but I'm hearing an underlying conversation in the room.  The Senators and Carol are trying to balance the responsibilities and freedoms of the government, the producer and the consumer.  The question is,  does this legislation facilitate reaching that balance?  Not likely, from what I'm hearing.  The Bill is all about coercion, particularly by Health Canada inspectors.  
 

5:27 pm: Senator Day is on the ball once again.  He's really nailed the flaws in this legislation.  Apart from rediculously vague or broad definitions, he asks about due process.  Or lack thereof.  Sure enough, this is a huge concern for Carol.  Her organization has made any number of useful recommendations to bring this legislation into the world of natural justice.  To fit with Canada's legal traditions, in fact.  All of which have obviously been ignored.   Every time this point is raised, I must admit my mind simply boggles ... how can you not have the right to appear before an independent tribunal to appeal a bureaucratic decision?  And reasonable time lines (not just 7 days as in the Bill)?  Carol actually repeats what I said last week ... an appeal after the fact is of no help to anyone. 

5:37 pm: Senator  Martin now leaps in to share what she believes to be the intention of the bill.  Hallelujah!   It sounds really good.  LOL ... Carol just said she wishes Senator Martin herself had actually written the Act! Regrettably, what the Senator believes is written in the bill is NOT there.  Oh, oh ... bit of an awkward moment around the table.  Can the witness be right, after all?  Whoa .....

5:40 pm: Senator Keon mow takes his turn.  He starts by acknowledging all the emails and calls from Canadians.  Well done, all you folks out there.  It's good to know that this world famous heart surgeon, Dr. Keon, is paying attention.   But now he raises a concern about international trade.   So Carol explains.  Currently there's no guarantee that standards on imported products will not be greater (more onerous) than those on domestic products even though Canada has signed all sorts of treaties saying we must not treat foreigners any worse than we treat our own home grown manufacturers and distributers (whew, take a deep breath there).  What Bill C-6 would do, apparently, is give those treaties some teeth in domestic legislation.  Hmmm ...
 

6:00 pm:  Well, some further advocacy work by Senator Martin marks the end of the witness session.  After good wishes are exchanged all round, the Chair then turns his attention to the committee's schedule.  On November 18, the Privacy Commissioner will appear.  A week later, on Nov 25, Shawn Buckley will be the witness, followed the next day by the Health Minister and her officials.  After that, the committee will consider what it proposes to recommend to the Senate as a whole.  Senator Eggleton expresses his hope and desire to have the committee's report finished and available by the end of November.    What's this?  Senator Eaton says she doesn't want to hear from Mr. Buckley.  Because his organization believes the bill will force mandatory vaccinations.  My goodness, that's a turn up for the books.  Does the Senate only listen to people it agrees with, perhaps?  Ah well, never mind.  She's new, after all, and her suggestion is not accepted.  So there you have it, folks.  The committee will continue its hearings in a couple of weeks ... stay tuned!  

Thank you Senator McCoy and Senators. As well all those appearing to bring to light the absolute outrageousness of Bill C-6. After trying to digest the bill and watching Mr. Buckley's you tube vids it can not get any clearer. Health Canada certainly is and has been failing Canadians and for that it seems the grab is on. Thank Canadian goodness there is still a vestige of sanity alive and well. We look forward to November 25th.

I am loving this live blogging of Senate hearings.  Where are the media?  Are they not allowed in these hearings -- or are you stuck doing their job for them? 

Your no-holds-barred comments are breathtakingly honest.  Keep 'em coming!

A bit of a rant and an admonition to continue intelligent debate in the Senate.

I would be in favour of a bill applying to multinational drug companies, munitions manufacturers, biotech enterprises, GMO seed producers, bio warfare agencies, and governments waging wars, all purportedly for the public good. Is there the possibility that Bill C6 could apply equally to these agencies on behalf of "consumers".

Do you catch my drift. Seriously, things have already gone so far that in my mind we are fiddling while the ship goes down. But it is a start toward sanity. The discussion of protecting consumers from dangerous products is a bit like skimming scum from the broth. We really need to see where the bones are boiling! 

What bones? I mean, pandemic vaccines produced by corporations who have a vested interest in fearful pandemics. Where do viruses come from? Why are they so virulent?  Should we ask, "where do computer viruses come from?" Oh, they breed and mutate naturally. True, the cyber world follows natural laws in a sense. So this may be the allegorical reference. People are making computer viruses. Bio warfare is being waged against citizens for profit. Investigate these people!  Health Canada is impotent in this area.

Dead Bones (of consumers) -  are from goods produced for a profit which are harmful or destructive to earth and people. Genetically modified organisms, hybrid seeds, toxic vaccines which have ill effects on health. Petroleum products, PVC, urethane, plastic. Really the list is too large to contemplate. We depend on all this. But it is killing us.

Meanwhile, try not to suffer "collateral damage". Keep well.

The main problem in my mind is that our government generally seems to favour arrangements where these issues are not debated by sensible people. Thank you Senators. My hope is in your considered debate. Please do fiddle while the ship goes down. It is the only hope we have for the moment.

A bit of a rant and an admonition to continue intelligent debate in the Senate.

I would be in favour of a bill applying to multinational drug companies, munitions manufacturers, biotech enterprises, GMO seed producers, bio warfare agencies, and governments waging wars, all purportedly for the public good. Is there the possibility that Bill C6 could apply equally to these agencies on behalf of "consumers".

Do you catch my drift. Seriously, things have already gone so far that in my mind we are fiddling while the ship goes down. But it is a start toward sanity. The discussion of protecting consumers from dangerous products is a bit like skimming scum from the broth. We really need to see where the bones are boiling! 

What bones? I mean, pandemic vaccines produced by corporations who have a vested interest in fearful pandemics. Where do viruses come from? Why are they so virulent?  Should we ask, "where do computer viruses come from?" Oh, they breed and mutate naturally. True, the cyber world follows natural laws in a sense. So this may be the allegorical reference. People are making computer viruses. Bio warfare is being waged against citizens for profit. Investigate these people!  Health Canada is impotent in this area.

Dead Bones (of consumers) -  are from goods produced for a profit which are harmful or destructive to earth and people. Genetically modified organisms, hybrid seeds, toxic vaccines which have ill effects on health. Petroleum products, PVC, urethane, plastic. Really the list is too large to contemplate. We depend on all this. But it is killing us.

Meanwhile, try not to suffer "collateral damage". Keep well.

The main problem in my mind is that our government generally seems to favour arrangements where these issues are not debated by sensible people. Thank you Senators. My hope is in your considered debate. Please do fiddle while the ship goes down. It is the only hope we have for the moment.

A bit of a rant and an admonition to continue intelligent debate in the Senate.

I would be in favour of a bill applying to multinational drug companies, munitions manufacturers, biotech enterprises, GMO seed producers, bio warfare agencies, and governments waging wars, all purportedly for the public good. Is there the possibility that Bill C6 could apply equally to these agencies on behalf of "consumers".

Do you catch my drift. Seriously, things have already gone so far that in my mind we are fiddling while the ship goes down. But it is a start toward sanity. The discussion of protecting consumers from dangerous products is a bit like skimming scum from the broth. We really need to see where the bones are boiling! 

What bones? I mean, pandemic vaccines produced by corporations who have a vested interest in fearful pandemics. Where do viruses come from? Why are they so virulent?  Should we ask, "where do computer viruses come from?" Oh, they breed and mutate naturally. True, the cyber world follows natural laws in a sense. So this may be the allegorical reference. People are making computer viruses. Bio warfare is being waged against citizens for profit. Investigate these people!  Health Canada is impotent in this area.

Dead Bones (of consumers) -  are from goods produced for a profit which are harmful or destructive to earth and people. Genetically modified organisms, hybrid seeds, toxic vaccines which have ill effects on health. Petroleum products, PVC, urethane, plastic. Really the list is too large to contemplate. We depend on all this. But it is killing us.

Meanwhile, try not to suffer "collateral damage". Keep well.

The main problem in my mind is that our government generally seems to favour arrangements where these issues are not debated by sensible people. Thank you Senators. My hope is in your considered debate. Please do fiddle while the ship goes down. It is the only hope we have for the moment.

It was good to see a sharp-thinking witness at the Committee’s hearing today. Ms. Osmond raised a lot of very legitimate concerns that remain in spite of the on-going active engagement and cooperation with Health Canada in addressing some of these concerns. Ms. Osmond’s organization attempted to provide remedies for some of the concerns in form of proposed amendments when the bill was still on the House’s table. I must admit I was very confused by what the Committee’s Chair had said about those proposed amendments: he said something to the effect of the Committee having access to the proposed amendments as soon as the translation is completed, yet the witness drew attention to the fact that there were proposed amendments that would have been translated long time ago by the House Committee. So, is there another set of amendments that were proposed subsequently that need translating first in order for the Social Affairs Committee to be able to review them?

I'm very glad Senator Day raised again the question of "government" as broadly defined in Bill C-6 and it's good to hear that the same concerns he raised are echoed in the answers given by today's witness, particularly when it comes to release of confidential business information to foreign government entities. 

Bravo Senator Banks - great questions!!!

Thank you Senator McCoy once more for being here and blogging!

(And thank you for the great Interview on Roadkill Radio yesterday!)