I don't think you can.
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.
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.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'd like to suggest that somebody else include the words “definition of a prescribed health care institution shall”, and then the subamendment would read, “at least include hospitals, community health centres, and pharmacies”.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
It doesn't limit the minister, but at least these basics would be covered.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Okay. So we have a subamendment to your amendment. Is there any further discussion? I guess we'll deal with the subamendment now. Is there any other discussion on that?
Okay. So we go to Mr. Morin's subamendment, which would insert two words, “at least”. All those in favour?
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On Ms. Davies' amendment NDP-1.2, all those in favour?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I think that addresses all of the amendments that we had for clause 2. Now I'll ask the question on clause 2 as amended.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 3)
Ms. Adams.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
I would move amendment CPC-3, please, as CPC-2 has already passed.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Yes. I was in the same boat as Ms. Adams. I forgot that the other one got collected.
NDP-2 would be—
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Could I ask a question about CPC-2? It's not an amendment; it's just a question.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Now that this has been approved, could Mr. Lee confirm if the minister would be able to disclose information to consumer groups or, for example, to health researchers and guideline developers? Would it actually cover those?
11:45 a.m.
Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
There are two powers here. One is that if there is a risk of injury, the minister can disclose very broadly—so to consumer groups, publicly. There's also an ability in proposed paragraph 3(3)(c) to give it to.... Researchers would fall into proposed paragraph 3(3)(c), a person who carries out functions that relate to the protection or promotion of human health. So there could be a right of access to that proprietary information through that paragraph.
11:45 a.m.
Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
If they were carrying out that function and it was for that function, yes.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Okay. That's good, Ms. Davies.
We're at amendment NDP-2 now.
Ms. Davies.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
This is amendment NDP-2. I would move that clause 3 be amended (a) by replacing line 27 on page 3 with the following:
may order the holder of a therapeutic product authorization to
and by replacing line 35 on page 3 with the following:require the holder of a therapeutic product authorization to
If you look at the bill, it uses the words, “may order a person who sells”, and then on line 35 it says, “require the person who sells”. In the rest of the bill it talks about a “holder”. I believe the term holder is a broader definition that includes a seller and a holder, so it's a better term to use. I think that's possibly why it's being used in that manner elsewhere in the bill. We think it would be better to use the term “holder” here, so that the minister can be explicitly empowered to issue suspensions and recalls to both types of persons, both sellers and holders of therapeutic authorizations, as it covers the spectrum.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
That was amendment NDP-2 to clause 3. Is there any other discussion on that?
Mr. Young.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Chair, we don't support this amendment. In the present language, a person who sells—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
We do not. The reason is that in the present language, “a person who sells” captures everyone in the distribution chain, with the exception of the patient, because the definition of “sell” in the Food and Drugs Act includes, “offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale and distribute, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration”. So a recall order would do what it's supposed to do, which is to apply to the manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler, retailer, health care practitioners, and pharmacists to get unsafe drugs out of the supply chain.
The language of the proposed motion, “holder of a therapeutic product authorization” would restrict the recall authority to therapeutic product authorization holders only and would narrow the recall powers. So we don't support it because of the apparently unintended consequences.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
