Interventions in Committee
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
David Lee
View David Lee Profile
David Lee
2014-06-12 11:19
Mr. Chair, the inclusion of a list in this definition may be a very vulnerable way to introduce what the member is suggesting. There is a commonly understood international approach to what is protected, and that's really expressed in this definition. By saying what is not on that list.... Much of what's on that list would be considered protected in most countries, so it could attract international challenge.
What Mr. Young has gone through in terms of the appropriate way to deal with that information is really what flows to the other motions.
Supriya Sharma
View Supriya Sharma Profile
Supriya Sharma
2014-06-12 11:32
Just to add, in terms of the Health Canada assessment around the Alysena issue, we did actually deem it to be a serious risk when we did do the risk assessment. When the testimony was given, I think the issue was that when the company had made the assessment, they had not raised the same issue.
Certainly the Health Canada assessment was that it was a serious risk, and we've had subsequent issues around recalls of similar products since that time. Again, it has been treated as it would apply in terms of the definition that we have moving forward.
Suzy McDonald
View Suzy McDonald Profile
Suzy McDonald
2014-05-29 18:21
Thank you.
The GHS is not a system that Canada would sign on to. It's a system that Canada did help to develop at the United Nations. We were one of the key countries involved, along with many other countries. It's a system whereby each country can choose to adopt the GHS or any portions of the GHS. So it's not something that we've signed on to, but we are choosing to implement it here in Canada.
Does that respond to your question?
Jason Wood
View Jason Wood Profile
Jason Wood
2014-05-29 18:32
My colleague Mr. Morales has additional information to add, but essentially, the amendment being proposed is redundant to the existing sections of the bill as proposed.
Currently, proposed section 14 says that if you're going to import a product, it needs to be compliant with the regulations. The amendment being proposed is adding some text indicating, “unless exempted by the regulations”. The effect of that amendment is essentially nothing. There's no additional impact of that amendment. Essentially, it would still cause us to have to create, in the regulations, the exemption we're talking about now. So the exemption raised by the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association with respect to labelling a product after it's been imported would still have to be created in the regulations.
Results: 1 - 4 of 4