Evidence of meeting #34 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Is there any other discussion on NDP-3.1?
I'll give everybody a second to digest it.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Mr. Chair, I'd like to defer to the legal counsel from Health Canada for their thoughts on this one.
12:15 p.m.
Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Mr. Chair, the idea that you make the provision of information connect the registration of clinical trials with the validity of a market authorization.... There's a lot to look at there.
A market authorization allows a drug to be given to a patient. These are often very needed. If you're prolonging life with a cancer drug, having technically failed to register and thereby automatically cancelling a licence, or going to the validity of a licence, is a moment of gravity.
There are other measures in this instrument, or at least they're proposed—to go for large fines, and so on—to discipline company behaviour around transparency. It's just as a cautionary note.
The other thing is that in the regulations, as a matter of course as the minister goes along, Health Canada does want to see every study done on the drug and would want to put that in the regulatory requirements. That goes to the drug approval itself. We would suggest that's the appropriate placement of a requirement of this nature.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Is there any other discussion on the amendment? We're on Ms. Davies' amendment, NDP-3.1.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
While we're here, we'll do one quick thing, and then we'll carry on.
I'll ask whether clause 3 should carry as amended.
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)
We're going to suspend. After the vote we'll come back and do it all over again.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Welcome back. We're back in session here until 1:45.
Mr. Wilks, I see your hand.
June 12th, 2014 / 12:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to move that the health committee extend its current meeting, suspending at 1:45 and resuming at 3:30, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-17, and that the committee continue sitting until clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-17 is complete, or 11:59 p.m., whichever comes first.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Are there any other comments on what Mr. Wilks just said?
Okay, we'll keep carrying on, then.
(Motion agreed to)
Just so you know, the clerk has advised me that if we don't get through it by question period, it will be at 253-D in Centre Block.
(On clause 4)
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Are there any comments for amendment CPC-5?
There is no discussion on amendment CPC-5.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
There is just one amendment for clause 4, so we've dealt with all the amendments for clause 4. It has been amended.
(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 5)
Moving right along....
Mr. Wilks, I see your hand up.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Just as a clarification, Mr. Chair, CPC-6, as I understand it from earlier, has already been carried, has it?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
That's correct, and that was earlier.
There isn't anything else I see for clause 5.
1:05 p.m.
A voice
As amended.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
No, we have a vote first on clause 5, and then we'll get into 5.1.
So we did CPC-6, the amendment. Now we're going to have a vote on clause 5 as amended.
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)
Now we're on to 5.1, which is a new clause. We're going to deal with that one right now.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Correct. They created a new clause, 5.1, and now we're going to deal with NDP-4.
Go ahead.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Chair, this clause 4 was raised by a number of witnesses who expressed a lot of concern that the minister wouldn't necessarily be exempt from liability for lost product sales or other injury to a manufacturer or seller due to decisions that she's exercised under this bill. So we think it's very important that it be explicitly clear that the minister should be free from the threat of liability when making these very important decisions under this bill for the safety of Canadians.
So we've moved an amendment 5.1, that the act be amended by adding the following after section 29.2:
NO LIABILITY
It would continue:
29.3 Despite any other Act of Parliament, no civil or criminal proceedings lie against the Minister or any person acting on behalf of, or under the direction of, the Minister for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the exercise or performance of any powers, duties or functions that under this Act are intended or authorized to be exercised or performed.
So again, this was suggested by a whole number of witnesses and was to ensure that the minister does have an exemption from liability.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I saw this recommendation come out of the CMAJ analysis, etc., but the legal precedent for this is that such an exemption is not necessary. The courts would be very reluctant to intercede. They would intercede only in cases in which a future minister exercised his or her power unreasonably, that is, it was not done reasonably and in good faith.
Health Canada has recall powers—for example, for food products, etc.—and to my knowledge have never been sued for doing so. I'd like to defer to our legal counsel Mr. Edwards, please. Thanks.
1:05 p.m.
David Edwards Senior Counsel, Legal Services Unit--Health Canada, Department of Justice
The recall powers in the Canada Food Inspection Agency Act—in section 19, for example—have been used without concern in that way for a number of years. I can verify that there have been no cases, but I'm certainly not aware of any successful cases against the crown in that regard.
