Bill C-51 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Food and Drugs Act to modernize the regulatory system for foods and therapeutic products, to strengthen the oversight of the benefits and risks of therapeutic products throughout their life cycle, to support effective compliance and enforcement actions and to enable a greater transparency and openness of the regulatory system.
It also amends other Acts in consequence and includes transitional provisions and coordinating amendments.

Food and Drugs Act

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

moved that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-51.

Overseeing food and health product safety is one of the most fundamental roles the federal government plays in Canadian society. Today there are so many health products available already and so many more are coming to market. We are in a time when Canadians are taking a deep interest in the safety of the foods they eat and the products they use. We are most certainly in a time when Canadians want to know that their government is taking safety seriously.

We know that the trust of Canadians needs to be won daily. Past performance is not enough.

That is why, in the Speech from the Throne last October, the government committed to introduce “measures on food and product safety to ensure that families have confidence in the quality and safety of what they buy.”

In December the measures started taking form as the Prime Minister announced Canada's new food and consumer safety action plan. Its goal is to modernize and strengthen Canada's safety system for food, health and consumer products. To support this goal, budget 2008 has invested $113 million for the next two years alone.

The next step is to update our legislation to give us the tools we need to better protect Canadians. This is why Bill C-51 is before the House today. The Food and Drugs Act is 50 years old and many of its provisions no longer reflect today's reality. Bill C-51 seeks to modernize it through a new approach updated for the global economy. This new approach is based on preventing problems in the first place, targeting the highest risks and responding rapidly to problems as they arise.

Let me take a few moments to describe some key elements of Bill C-51. This bill enhances our legal framework to protect and promote the health and safety of Canadians in the areas of health products and food. While it covers many activities in a very diverse field, among the most important is the fact that Bill C-51 seeks to change much of how health product licensing takes place in Canada.

Currently under Canadian law, no one can simply start to manufacture or sell the kinds of health products covered by this bill. No one can simply start a clinical trial designed to test a new health product. A Government of Canada licence is needed, which is only issued after important conditions are met. When it comes to health products, the basic test for licensing is this: Do the product's potential benefits outweigh the potential risks?

The problem with the old approach under the Food and Drugs Act is that once a company has that licence, there are few measures to require ongoing confirmation that a drug or some other product meets this safety test, even if new or greater risks become known. As a result, Canadian requirements for companies to track the safety of their marketed therapeutic products are out of step with other leading regulators.

Of course, the vast majority of companies live up their obligations to consumers, but the absence of a framework that compels them to does not meet the expectations of Canadians or of this government. Bill C-51 addresses that gap between what we have and what we want.

Our rigorous approach to health product licensing will continue. However, the bill aims to provide the government with the tools that will allow it to require ongoing assurances that health products meet standards once they are on the market. These tools will also allow the government to intervene and order a recall, if necessary.

It establishes what we call a life cycle approach, a continuous system for monitoring the safety, the efficacy and the quality of drugs and other therapeutic products. It starts with the clinical trials that a company has to conduct before being permitted to bring its product into Canada's market. That stage normally provides information needed to spot and prevent possible safety issues.

At every step of the way, throughout the entire life cycle of a product, our government's scientists will use the latest evidence to assess whether the product's benefits continue to outweigh its potential risks.

By taking this life cycle approach, our oversight will target the highest risks and give us the information we need to respond rapidly as soon as we identify a problem. The constant flow of information will make it more likely that threats to safety and to health are identified promptly and acted on much more effectively.

The proposed bill also advances safety by authorizing the development of regulations to require more reporting of adverse drug reactions. It paves the way to work with the provinces and territories to make it mandatory for hospitals to report these adverse drug reactions. That step will generate more information for improved drug safety. As a result, problems can be caught earlier and responded to faster to better protect Canadians.

Similarly, Bill C-51 seeks to ensure that Canadians will generally have easier access to pertinent information about health products.

This bill contains provisions that will make the regulatory system more open and more transparent so that Canadians can obtain the information they need about the risks and benefits associated with products and make informed choices.

Industry generally takes consumer safety very seriously and cooperates with governments to address consumer safety concerns when they arise. However, for those few suppliers that do not cooperate, the proposed legislation includes measures to help ensure that corrective action is taken.

This includes the ability to order the recall of a health product from the Canadian market, when appropriate, to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We need this power if we are to respond as rapidly as possible to problems as soon as we learn about them to better safeguard the health of Canadians.

Under the bill, those few companies that are insufficiently concerned with the health and safety of the people who use their products would also experience significantly higher penalties for their actions.

For a very long time the maximum fine for health products under the Food and Drugs Act had been just $5,000. The bill proposes stiffer fines of up to $5 million for serious contraventions and will leave the ceiling open to the court's discretion when a supplier is found to act wilfully or recklessly. With greater deterrents in place, manufacturers will have even greater incentive to prevent problems from happening in the first place.

Together, the bill, and all of the work under the food and consumer safety action plan, sends an important message to Canadians and to the organizations that produce, import, distribute, and use the health products covered by the legislation.

The Government of Canada is taking consumer protection seriously and we are taking action. We are doing so in part through modernizing the Food and Drugs Act to prevent as many problems as possible, to target the highest risks and to ensure rapid response to problems as they arise. We are doing that by taking a health and food products safety system, which works well now, and making improvements so it works much better for Canadians.

I urge all parties to support Bill C-51 so that we can offer Canadians the system they want and need in order to ensure the safety of food and health products.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 is a long bill of some 75 clauses and it affects a number of other acts.

Members are already receiving correspondence from their constituents concerning natural therapeutic products. It will be a very significant issue for the government and Parliament to address with regard to the implications of the bill to these natural therapeutic products.

One of my constituents specifically wrote about her son who suffers from Lyme disease and requires certain drugs. It is not that these drugs would cure the problem, but they help in terms of quality of life or in the ability to control the effects of the disease. It is a very serious situation, and I know the minister is aware of that.

At the outset, there must be a declaration of the government that the implications of Bill C-51 will not be draconian in regard to the pricing or availability of natural therapeutic products so those who believe that those products are necessary for themselves or their family members will continue to have reasonable and appropriate access with appropriate health safeguards.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the member's comments at this time. I state categorically and for the record, there is nothing targeted to the natural health products industry in the bill. There is nothing that is draconian in terms of the effects of pricing and availability in the bill. Indeed, we seek to ensure that natural health products are available to Canadians.

Of course we are always concerned about safety and efficacy, particularly safety. Natural health products, just as prescription drugs and certain other therapeutic products, have to be available in a safe way to Canadians.

I would say for a purveyor or manufacturer of a natural health product, if what is on the label is accurate and if what is claimed about the natural health product is accurate, there is nothing to fear from the legislation. Indeed, our government and our caucus want more natural health products on the marketplace for more choice for Canadians, but we will not stand by if there is a dangerous product.

I issue warnings practically every week about this or that dangerous product, some of which are natural health products, which can have an impact on cardiac arrest, strokes or liver damage. Things can have this kind of impact. We do not want those products available. We want Canadians to be warned and we want them to be safe.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the minister about Bills C-51 and C-52. We know that the bill will require more human resources and also a training budget. We are all anxious to see how the minister will meet expectations in implementing his bill.

In 2006, the Auditor General noted the lack of human resources, especially in the areas of training and the safety of therapeutic products, foods and cosmetics. There is a shortage of resources.

The minister mentioned natural products. He is certainly aware that there are delays in granting authorizations to sell natural products. That is my first question.

As for my second question, the minister knows that these two bills rely on regulations. Since the regulations do not yet exist, we will have a bill but will not know what sort of regulations will be made. These regulations could give us an idea of how the bill will be interpreted. Can the minister tell me when the regulations will be ready—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Health.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

First, with regard to funding and human resources, it is important to invest in these areas so that these bills can provide a solution. As I said, budget 2008 includes more than $100 million for the next two years and more than $500 million for the next five years for human resources and the other obligations arising from these bills.

Second, the regulations are also very important, of course. There will be many opportunities in future to discuss the regulations. It is important that these bills act as an umbrella. It is important for Parliament to discuss the regulations.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I think many Canadians would be surprised that the federal government in the past has not had the power to recall items. Could the minister give us a couple of day to day examples of what the bill would do to empower the government to have that?

Could the minister also elaborate on what has been called the life cycle approach. I think that is a concept with which many Canadians may not be familiar. Could he explain how that will affect a product, not today but two years, five years, fifty years down the road?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think many Canadians would be surprised to learn that the Minister of Health and the Government of Canada do not have the power of recall under the Food and Drugs Act presently, except for food, but for other products, therapeutic products, for instance, that is not the case.

Therefore, we are left in the situation where if Health Canada believes there is a dangerous product on the shelves, whether it be a prescription drug, or a natural health product or some other therapeutic product, we presently have to negotiate with the manufacturer and the distributor to get the product off the shelves. We are left with merely issuing warnings on websites and various media outlets not to take this product because it has a deleterious effect.

Therefore, that is a problem. In the last resort, at the very least, we want to have the ability to recall.

In respect to the member's question on the life cycle approach, in a nutshell, we would have the same standards available for approving, let us say, a prescription drug at the beginning of the process, but we would still concern ourselves with any additional studies, or information or evidence of adverse reactions that occur as a drug is distributed throughout the country as a medicinal product.

Therefore, we do not stop our concern just as the product is licensed. We continue our concern throughout the life of that product.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to raise a further issue with the minister.

In the communications I have received from a number of the groups, they have asked whether they can get some assurance that they will be able to appear before committee and that the government will support their appearance before committee to ask questions, if necessary, and to provide information which would help the committee assess whether any appropriate amendments could be made to Bill C-51 to make it even a better bill.

Could the minister give the assurance that the government will support these groups being able to come before the Standing Committee on Health?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not chair the committee, but it would strike me as reasonable that this approach be seriously considered by the committee chair.

What I can tell the hon. member is we have engaged in numerous discussions with various stakeholders in the natural health products area. We continue to have those discussions. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Quite frankly, there has been some scaremongering about the intent and the effect of the bill. We are trying to have a reasoned conversation with people to ensure they realize that this is not an attack on the industry. This is not designed to shut down the availability of their products.

This is designed to protect the health and safety of Canadians and there are certain things found in the bill that will apply the proper balance between the right to commerce on the one hand, but our rights to safety as Canadians on the other. I think that is appropriate.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the parties, and I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent that I be permitted to share my time with the member for Malpeque.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all members of the House.

I do not want to shock the minister while he is still present in the House, but it will come as very difficult news to him that for two days in a row we have to find some level of agreement with the bill that he proposes to the House of Commons. I am looking forward to this bill being at committee and to having the opportunity to further explore it.

I am pleased with the answer he gave to the member for Mississauga South. It is consistent with the discussion I had with the parliamentary secretary as to the fears out there about natural health products and natural therapeutic products not being targeted by this bill. I think that fear was out there, so I think this will be necessary. As I understand it, we can be assured of the government's cooperation if modifications have to be made in the definitions or in the bill so that this can be clearly drawn out.

That leaves one area of concern that I have been receiving as critic and which members undoubtedly will hear about. It is the question of direct to consumer advertising. While I understand from the bureaucrats or the minister's officials that there is no intention in this bill to permit direct to consumer advertising, it does somewhat change the way it is dealt with.

In the past it was directly in the bill. The bill said that the only advertising on prescription products would be the name, quantity and price. They were the only things that could be advertised. In this case, my understanding of it is that this gives the governor in council the potential to write regulations concerning advertising.

My understanding is that it is not the intent to open up the advertising, but it does take it out of the hands of Parliament and of the committee. That would cause some concern, so I hope that the government, at committee level, will be willing to look at some modifications to the bill, some amendments that might clarify this.

It could be done in one of two ways. One is that we could do the process that we have used in certain elements of the Health Act, which is to bring the regulations to committee for approval. We could limit it to those regulations concerning advertising, because it does not have to be all the regulations permitted under the act, or an amendment straight to the act. I will give some time for the government to consider those amendments before it comes to the committee. Hopefully, they will be negotiated amendments. If not, I am sure we will have some present.

That being said, I think the principles of this bill are quite good. This is not a bill that has been dreamt up in the last few weeks by the government. This bill is a result of a process of discussions and consultations that has been going on since 2003. These are part of the process that was known at the time as the smart regulations process. We were looking at regulatory reforms to the Government of Canada acts that necessitated those regulations to see if there was not a better way to do it, to be competitive internationally and domestically, and to at the same time protect Canadians.

One of the elements that comes in here is drug safety. The assurance of drug safety is very difficult. As the minister pointed out, the test on permitting or licensing of pharmaceutical products is whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. We do not necessarily know when that first evaluation is done what the use of that pharmaceutical product will be in time, whether it will evolve from when the original clinical trials were done, and whether other drugs or therapies will come on stream that might interact with it. We do not know that.

Here we are going with the principle that has been known as progressive licensing and is now termed life cycle approvals or a life cycle approach. I do not know what it could be called that would reflect its true nature, but what it does is say that to get on the market initially the product has to meet the same safety criteria as it is currently meeting. The criteria are not relaxed.

Once the product is on the market, Health Canada has the ability to order further clinical trials or withdraw the licence if there is no compliance. I think that is important, because there could have been such a strict restrictive process, so as to assure absolute safety, that no new pharmaceuticals would ever come on the market.

However, with this process, we assure the safety of the product through clinical trials, and then we have time to do the evaluation as it is being used in the market, because the absolute use might be different from the use that had been foreseen. We heard at committee that the United States food and drug regulations use the 10,000 dosage system. After 10,000 dosages, they do a re-evaluation. Here, it could be different for any therapies.

However, once the experts at Health Canada see how a drug is evolving in its use, they can order further clinical trials at any time. I think it is important to try to understand what this means.

Number one, we know that almost no pharmaceuticals, and I could almost say zero, are approved for use by children. They are very seldom approved for use in pediatrics because it is so difficult to do clinical trials for pediatrics. The clinical trials before the first approval of a drug are done with adults. Then, over time, dosages or uses of prescriptions are studied by specialists in their work. When they find there is some value for use in pediatrics, they try to find the right dosage.

A drug might be developed for one specific use. For example, we have heard about Viagra being used in pediatric care, and while a drug might be developed for one specific use, it can be found through time that it is even more useful for other conditions that had not been considered. This is called off-label use.

I remember reading not so long ago about a cancer drug being used for macular degeneration. It was just as effective as the drug that had been used for macular degeneration. Thus, we can see how a drug might be used in a therapy other than the purpose for which it had its first clinical trials.

We now have the ability, with this bill, for Health Canada to order clinical trials in that area of use and in that population. If we discover with time that the major use of a certain therapy or pharmaceutical product ends up being done by seniors, those between the ages of 50 and 65, then perhaps Health Canada could order that a specific clinical trial be done in that area. If it is for people who have certain diseases and there are risks, we can do those things.

That is a logical, smart approach, which permits the drug to come on the market under the same criteria that it does now. This is what I think Canadians have to understand: this is not the relaxation of the initial criteria. It is a reasonable, intelligent way of monitoring the use of that product over time and changing the licensing standards.

Again, I think it is important to respond to the scare that is being put out there, because there are a lot of Canadians who are finding very good benefits in using non-prescription health products, therapeutic products, natural health products, organics, or whatever we want to call them. They are under different names. People are concerned when they see this bill that it might mean they can no longer access those products. I have had calls about this, as all the members of Parliament will.

I take the minister at his word. When I read the bill, I did not see any effect on the natural health product directorate and I did not see that these products were moved, but the fear is out there among Canadians and I think we will have to ensure, before the bill goes through the House of Commons and the Senate, that it is cleared up.

Yesterday when we were looking at Bill C-52, I raised a question on the power to recall and said that we have to be careful. We have to be careful that the power to recall does not become an obligation to recall. If we give the power to the minister and his inspectors, we have to make sure that this power is used only when all other methods fail and only when all other methods have been attempted, because we do not know of any problems we have had so far. So far, negotiations have been successful.

I see that my time has run out. I thank members for their attention.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and for what appears to be a very thoughtful and cooperative approach to this government legislation. I think it demonstrates that this Parliament has the potential to work very well in that together we can move forward legislation that is important for Canadians.

I have a question for the member. The life cycle approach has a lot of merit, I think, and we have heard the minister speak to that. I wonder if the member would agree that the life cycle approach is the right approach to take when it comes to products such as those we are discussing today.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is. It gives the tools to the Department of Health. It gives the department the potential to ensure the safety of a product as its use evolves. Currently, all we can do is look at whether the product is safe for the use for which the application was made. With time, the use might become completely different than what was considered when that product was developed and when clinical trials were happening.

As I mentioned in my speaking notes, if we want to make the initial licensing so restrictive and so strict as to ensure our safety on all uses in the future, no therapies would ever come to market. No new drugs and no new therapies would ever become commercialized and Canadians would not have access to them.

I think this is a logical way to do it. It is a smart regulation. I do not know why we would ever have accepted stupid regulation, but this is an intelligent way of having regulation and ensuring safety.

It is important to have the necessary tools and the will at the Department of Health to impose those further clinical trials after the drug has been on the market for a certain amount of time. Again, that is going to require some cooperation from pharmaceutical producers.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commentary of the member, who is the health critic for the official opposition.

We have had some experience in the past through the reproductive technologies bill. It was supposed to take two years for regulations to come forward, but several years later we still do not have all of the regulations. I see here that there are other regulations.

My question for the member really has to do with the fact that half of the clauses in the bill would make consequential amendments to other acts. I do not know how many members of Parliament would be able to inform themselves as to the nature of those changes and whether they should access all the other bills to see if the changes would be meaningful.

Will the member undertake as part of the review, should the bill pass at second reading and go to committee, to ensure that Health Canada would provide to committee, which would therefore make it accessible to other members of Parliament, a proper explanation as to the rationale for the consequential amendments to other acts so we can be absolutely assured that we do not have other areas that should be examined and may impact areas of concern to the public?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. It is a point that is often overlooked by the House when we approve a bill. We saw it with Bill C-10. One small element of a regulation was missed by the House, but luckily it was picked up by the Senate, as it would have led to censorship in our film and television production.

In this case, there are a number of acts, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, the Fisheries Act, and some agricultural aspects, which the next speaker will certainly want to raise. The joint administration and the cross-regulation between the Health Act, the Food and Drugs Act and other acts necessitate all these amendments.

These are some of the things that we certainly will be studying at committee. We will ask the Library of Parliament for the analysis, which it does very well. We have had the preliminary one. As well, witnesses will appear who can show us if there will be difficulties within their areas of jurisdiction or administration.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-51. In fact, as my colleague from West Nova said earlier in his remarks, these are two bills in a row, Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, that we are certainly most interested in moving forward to committee for further technical analysis and more research, but we do believe the bills in principle need to be carried forward.

The section of the bill with which I really want to deal is on the food side of it. I think there is strong interest in ensuring that products are indeed safe. I would say there is an almost public wave for stronger action in this regard. There has been the recent incidence of unsafe food. Health and consumer products have underscored the need to modernize the Food and Drugs Act. The fact of the matter is that the act was developed in 1953 and these amendments certainly update the bill.

Basically, the bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act and modernize the regulatory system for foods and therapeutic products. It would improve the surveillance of benefits and risks of therapeutic products through their life cycle. It is designed to increase compliance and enforcement measures by corporations to encourage them to report adverse reactions or potential health threats associated with market products. It would, I will admit, give substantial regulatory power to the minister.

I know there are some concerns about that. We have a number of letters already. That is why it is so important for the bill to go to committee relatively quickly, so that the witness lists can be prepared and those concerns can be addressed. We certainly support the idea of improving the safety and health of Canadians. We are committed to improving the safety and health of Canadians. We support measures to strengthen the regulatory system to ensure that Canadians are able to access the safest and most effective food in the world as well as with therapeutic products.

I want to turn mainly to the food area of the bill and that is in clauses 4 through to 6. The bill would create new offences relating to food, therapeutic products and cosmetics. It would require licensing for importing food and for the interprovincial trade in food.

In a previous Parliament there was Bill C-27. We in fact looked fairly extensively at the regulations surrounding the importing of food and the interprovincial trade in food. In all seriousness, there had to be improvements made in that area to ensure that imported food was safe and met the same kind of regulatory requirements as indeed Canadian food had to meet.

This bill in all areas would expand the regulatory authority, but in the food area it would expand the power of inspectors. I want to point out that it is not our intent nor do I believe it is the government's intent or even the bureaucracy's intent that the expansion of the powers of inspectors is to be overbearing. It is to ensure that the human resources and the authority are there to deal with some of the incidences that can happen on grocery store shelves or that imported food can face.

I would put a caveat in. Those of us who are on the agriculture committee know that certainly more human resources must be added to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for it to do its job. The government did indicate the other day that there are some budgetary measures in that regard, but there do need to be the human and financial resources for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to do its job and the additional authorities granted to it through this bill.

I also want to underline the fact that one of the concerns that we raised at our committee level was that these costs should not be passed on to primary producers. We have had enough of that. Primary producers should not be the ones bearing the costs for food inspections in this country. That is a public safety and health and safety issue. It is a public responsibility and we would hope that the government takes that seriously and funds the Canadian Food Inspection Agency appropriately to do its job.

The new prohibited activity in the bill really gives the government the authority to take action if someone knowingly provides the minister with false or misleading information relating to any matter in this bill, whether someone knowingly is tampering with a food, therapeutic product or a cosmetic, including tampering with a label or package.

A number of years ago, we heard about a substantial number of those where people, as a hoax or a threat or an act of terrorism really, had sent out the word over the media or email, or by other means, that they had in fact tampered with a food product on a grocery store shelf. That creates tremendous concern among the consuming public. It certainly creates difficulties for the businesses so affected. Under this bill, I do believe there is more authority for the authorities themselves to deal with those matters where there are hoaxes or threats, or indeed actual tampering with food itself.

The other area in clause 4 will also prohibit the importing of food that is injurious to human health. That is an important aspect of the bill that was not there previously in terms of the trade that goes on. It is very important that imported food be treated in the same way as domestic food on the grocery store shelves, and that action be taken against companies or individuals who may have both exported into this country or the company that imported the food that is injurious to human health. That is a very important measure.

We tend, in this country, to take our food system for granted. Canadian farmers provide the safest food in the world. The problem is they are certainly not paid well enough for it. Canadians only pay 13.5% of their income and by early February, their food bills are paid for the year. We do not want anything to happen on those grocery store shelves that will reflect badly on the Canadian primary producers.

The last point that I would make, as I see I am running out of time, is a point I made the other day, but I will make it again. Canadian farmers do face a double standard from their own government regulations. We must be on a level playing field with the rest of the world. We cannot add another regulatory burden.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the member that $113 million over two years has been put aside in budget 2008. Naturally, we would like to thank the member for his support for that budget. I wonder if the member could explain his position on the life cycle approach and tell us if he supports his health critic on that approach to product safety.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that those resources are there. However, I want to point out to the parliamentary secretary that we have seen this in the past, both with the current government and previous governments. The way the system operates in Ottawa is that sometimes there is a small cost recovery fee or the government is in fact paying the fees for certain measures and after a while, as time goes on or the cost recovery fee goes up, the burden of cost is passed down to others in the industry. We want to ensure that does not happen in this case.

In terms of the health critic for the Liberal Party, on this side of the House we do not say “yes, sir” or “no, sir”. We have strong debates in caucus and we will on this issue. However, when the decision is made, we operate as a team, and certainly I will be supporting my health critic in this regard.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on the bill. I know the member comes from Prince Edward Island and I know that, having been out there, a lot of people in Prince Edward Island actually use natural health products.

He will remember, because I know this member has been in the House for a while, that over the years there have been discussions about the Food and Drugs Act and how to regulate natural health products. After a number of machinations, natural health products, which were promised to be a third category, ended up as a sub-category of drugs. Indeed, they have been regulated as a sub-class of drugs.

I wonder if the member has heard concerns from his constituents, as I certainly have, about the regulation of natural health products under this proposed bill. In fact, therapeutic products replace drugs and natural health products, so NHPs equal drugs and drugs equal NHPs except for the regulations. However, the bill has very serious and strong seizure, forfeiture regulations attached to this. Does the hon. member think it is appropriate for drugs to be applied to natural health products, is it a concern for him as we are hearing from some people across the country?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we are hearing, and we had a discussion here earlier among members on this side of the House, about the concern that is coming forward from people in the natural health products industry. In my overview of the bill, I do not think it hurts the natural health products industry or helps it at this point in time.

However, as the health critic said, it is extremely important when the bill gets to committee that witnesses be brought in and that they have their say. If there are concerns, they should be addressed. I think the natural health products industry is a growing industry. These are more natural products and they get us off the drug hook, if I can put it that way.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

A very brief question or comment. The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, actually, my question was not brief, so I guess I will ask the short part. I have two emails. The short one reads:

I am opposed to the police state powers in Bill C-51. I want my access to natural health products protected and there is something wrong with the state making personal health decisions for us. Health decisions are fundamental to our personal autonomy.

I wonder if the member has any comments to that email.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is a legitimate question and it is one that should be addressed when the bill gets to committee with witnesses in that regard.

However, on the food side, which I generally talked about, we do need the authority as a government regulator to move rapidly if there are concerns in the system or a small issue becomes magnified and mushrooms into a huge issue.

I would suggest that those concerns should be addressed at committee. I do not believe there are police state powers in the bill.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to second reading stage of Bill C-51 to amend the Food and Drugs Act. We know this act has been around for 40 years and that not too many changes have been made to it with respect to food and drug safety.

Bill C-51 bears a strong resemblance and is closely related to Bill C-52, which seeks to better monitor products on the market and reassure the public about product safety.

Here the government is taking things a bit further. It wants to cover other products, including pharmacological products, and look at pharmacovigilance.

Why does the government want to modernize this act? Because the public is quite worried. In the past few months and years, it has come to our attention that some products are harmful to our health. Certain drugs have adverse effects causing death.

For example, there is Singulair produced by Merck Frosst. This is an asthma drug that causes suicidal ideation. Champix, an anti-smoking drug produced by Pfizer, also causes suicidal ideation and depression. What is more, anti-psychotic drugs for children apparently cause obesity. These are some of the harmful effects of taking those drugs.

More and more people are worried about some of the drugs on the market. Some consumer products, such as children's toys or toothpaste from South Africa, also contain toxic substances. Other products contain mercury. The government is introducing this bill, which it was asked to do, to reassure the public about drug safety.

The minister has been asked about this a number of times. In 2006, the Auditor General issued a scathing report saying the government should make some changes. The lack of control by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was among the Auditor General's many criticisms. Even that agency admits that unsafe products may be found on the shelves and that the public has cause for concern.

Will the bill properly respond to this situation and ensure food and drug safety?

The minister probably wants to reassure citizens with his bill. The purpose of Bill C-52 is to increase the industry's accountability with regard to the food supply. The government may also require that food safety monitoring be implemented. To that end, it gives the minister the authority to conduct inspections at any time. It will also require the industry to report the adverse effects of consuming certain foods. It also provides for a tracing system not just for foods but also for cosmetics and therapeutic products.

Is this the right approach? The objectives are laudable. How will it be done? We know that a whole set of regulations will come after the bill. However, today, we cannot discuss the regulations because they are not available. We hope that they will be provided when the bill is studied in committee. With regard to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, passed in 2004, only one regulation was submitted to committee review and we are still waiting for the regulations. We hope that the regulations will follow on the heels of the bill so that they may be debated in committee.

Will the government meet the expectations of Canadians?

In response to the fears surrounding the safety of food and therapeutic products, the Auditor General was headed in the right direction when she sounded the alarm for the government by asking it to increase human resources and particularly to provide funding for inspections.

We need only think of natural products, for example. We know that there are between 33,000 and 40,000 products waiting for inspection in order to be licensed because of the shortage of inspectors. This applies not just to natural products but in particular to foods and consumer products. The inspectors quite often do not have the requisite training to properly inspect all these products.

There was a call for better training for staff and better human resources. I am afraid that this objective is not met by this bill. We can see that resources are lacking, as I was saying. Concerns about these shortcomings were expressed not only by the Auditor General but also by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Today, Bill C-51 goes one step further. In committee, we are studying aspects of post-market monitoring and pharmacovigilance. Over the past few months, we have met with experts and witnesses. We would have hoped to see Bill C-51 drafted along the lines that the committee suggested to the minister after it received recommendations from experts. However, he got a little ahead of the committee's work, and there was some duplication.

We are now considering this bill at second reading. We will vote in favour of the bill because we want it to be referred to committee for further study. That means that we will have to invite the same number of people, the same experts, to come tell us what they think about this bill. We would have hoped that the minister would have waited for our amendments and recommendations.

That is not what happened, so we hope that the minister will be open to some amendments to the bill in areas where he did not take into account all the concerns of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. We hope that the government will be open to these amendments. I am sure that amendments will be proposed, because the bill does not adequately address the issue of food and therapeutic product safety.

I would also like to talk about adverse drug reactions, which the bill addresses. Various experts commented on this and clarified things for us. That is what we would have liked to pass on to the minister before this bill was introduced. For example, consider hospitals' obligation to report on adverse drug effects, as set out in the bill. Many witnesses told us that that might not be the best way to go. Currently, between 1% and 10% of adverse effects are reported. Is the government hoping that by introducing this measure, that incidence will go up? Probably.

We would like to see greater interest in the reporting of adverse effects, but not just any old way. Some witnesses told us that hospitals may not have appropriate structures in place to fulfill this obligation. It might be too much red tape.

I do not know what kind of clarification the minister will provide on this issue. Regardless, we would have hoped to have had an opportunity to submit our recommendations after analyzing all of the testimony.

As I was saying, the bill also seeks to create a register of adverse reations.

We wonder about the reporting of serious and rare adverse reactions, but especially about how this information will be passed on so that health professionals are kept abreast of information from the adverse reaction register. The frequency of common adverse reactions is already known because of clinical trials. According to some witnesses, what is important is what we do not know, the unknown reactions.

With regard to mandatory reporting by hospitals, as I said, since all adverse reactions will have to be reported, not just unknown and more serious reactions, hospital pharmacists are afraid their workload will increase significantly. Should the emphasis be on the quantity or the quality of adverse reaction reports? An increase in the number of reports could dilute the most valuable information.

A number of witnesses told us that the focus should be on unexpected adverse reactions. Is the frequency of an adverse reaction important? These are questions we are still asking ourselves in committee. We believe that this issue has not yet been resolved. That is why we are going to question the government about this in committee.

For example, one witness, Bruce Carleton, a senior clinician scientist from the University of British Columbia and B.C. Children's Hospital, suggests looking at human genetics and drug biotransformation. According to Dr. Carleton, drug reactions have a genetic basis. If further genetic research were conducted, it would be possible to predict and avoid adverse drug reactions.

This is an indication of the complexity of detecting adverse reactions. We would have liked to see a more innovative, proactive approach that goes beyond just adverse drug reaction reporting. As I said, this is known as pharmacogenomics.

One of the major concerns we had in committee about the creation of a register of adverse effects and adverse reaction reporting by hospitals pertains to the method of post-market monitoring. As I said earlier, the effectiveness of post-market monitoring will depend on how the register of adverse drug effects is structured and on the effectiveness of feedback from health professionals, including pharmacists and physicians.

It is not enough to simply create registers and collect data. In her testimony on April 10, the Auditor General said that there were weaknesses in the analysis and interpretation of adverse events, and there was no proactive system to identify patterns that could signal a serious safety concern.

The committee's work could have enlightened the minister about this bill. As I was saying earlier, we would have liked for him to wait for our reactions and our recommendations after our three-month-long analysis on pharmacovigilance. Some witnesses also suggested that an independent evaluation board be created.

What about that? Will the bill cover that? We know that clinical trials are done by the manufacturers, and that often, a number of adverse effects are known, but are not revealed and the drug is put on the market. We would have liked to see an independent evaluation board, and a number of witnesses agreed.

The life cycle of a drug will supposedly be extended, but we would like this to be done not only by manufacturers, but also by an independent evaluation board throughout the life cycle of the drug. We know that drugs are often tested on certain patients, but other groups of people have not been tested—for example children and seniors—and often, these drugs have serious adverse effects if they are used.

The creation of a research centre of excellence, in partnership with our universities, has also been suggested. This centre could engage in pharmacoepidemiology studies that would be required by law and funded by the industry, but not conducted by the industry, which is currently the case. Another guide was suggested, one that would be much more proactive and independent in relation to the pharmaceutical industry.

Any mandatory adverse reaction report will be ineffective if not dealt with properly. That is more or less the conclusion reached by several witnesses who want the government to do something about this. Will Bill C-51 address all those concerns?

For now, as I said earlier, some drugs have been taken off the market, but they could have been not put on the market right away in the first place. The industry could have waited for further clinical trials to be done.

There are also fears that there is an attempt to shorten the process before a drug is put on the market. There are some fears about the life cycle of the drug and following it after it goes on the market. That is a step in the right direction, but there is also a fear that this would shorten the period before the certification of clinical trials. We heard this from several witnesses. Thus, the life cycle of a drug should not be an excuse for premarketing studies to be reduced nor for the door to be opened to such a possibility.

A number of witnesses have told us that they would like the minister to be open to certain amendments they would like to see made to this bill. It is hoped that the minister and this government will be open to the decision made during clause by clause consideration of the bill.

As I was saying earlier, the regulations are not yet available. Will they be satisfactory? It is hard to say. It is rather a blank cheque right now. We know that the regulation will give life to the bill.

The vote here in Parliament will send the bill to committee, as I think all hon. members want to address it. Work will be done in committee.

Nonetheless, we hope—I am saying this again because I do not want anyone to forget it—that the minister will be open to the various voices that have been heard. For three months, we have been studying the drug monitoring program and the new life cycle for drugs, which takes a different approach, namely that trials continue after the drug is put on the market, in the interest of human safety.

For example, we know that some people have died after taking certain drugs. We also know that often, for genetic reasons, some drugs should not be given to certain patients. There needs to be openness in order to better address this whole issue. We have to take into account all the problems we have in properly understanding the effects of drugs on patients, those who use these drugs.

Labelling was also discussed. Warnings have to be issued, for example, if a person is sick and there is a contraindication to taking a certain drug. We would hope that the minister is open to that and that this will address the entire problem.

We are in the process of reviewing this approach. Given the openness of the parliamentary secretary, who sits on our committee, he can relay the questions to the minister. We are counting on his openness in this matter and we hope he will be proactive and sympathetic to our demands.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party caucus also has concerns with regard to this legislation, specifically in the areas she addressed, and that is the safety of drugs and the shortcuts that can be taken in clinical trials.

I remind everyone that some years back the Liberals closed Health Canada drug labs and entered into what they called partnerships between drugs companies and Health Canada. That activity has compelled the NDP to take a very close look because it would seem to compromise the safety of some products.

Could the member opposite comment on that? Does she see a need to return to a more rigorous Health Canada review?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We are in the process of looking at pharmacovigilance, and a number of witnesses came to tell us that they would like to have an independent board. We hope that the government also wants to extend the life cycle when it comes to the safety of a pharmaceutical product.

We would like an independent body with the authority to oversee the products on the market. Witnesses told us that they do not want to decrease the amount of time required for clinical trials of drugs before they are put on the market. They also hope that an independent body will then be able to monitor these drugs.

Some drugs are subject to clinical trials, but their adverse effects are often kept secret. They are not known. How is it possible, for example, that 51% of drugs present serious side effects after being put on the market? Would it not be good for an independent body to also have the oversight on these clinical trials, instead of leaving it to private enterprise?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that there are no shortcuts when it comes to clinical trials. In fact, the bill, through the life cycle approach, is much more effective in ensuring the safety of Canadians because it would allow the government to monitor the products after they reach the market.

I will also address a concern raised by the Bloc. Proactive measures have been taken by the minister and the government. It has been demonstrated with the presentation of Bills C-51 and C-52. It has been demonstrated again in budget 2008 in which $113 million has been invested to ensure that we will have a food and consumer safety action plan that is well funded.

Will the member agree that a life cycle approach is the right way to go and that it is important for the Minister of Health to have the ability, in rare but extreme cases, to remove a product off the shelf? Those are really the main points of the bill. I hope the member will be open to accepting that the government is on the right track without predetermining, what is so often the case, negativity.

Does the member agree with the life cycle approach and mandatory recall, if necessary?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will reply to the Parliamentary Secretary for Health.

I am not negative; I am quite open. It is not about the life cycle approach. We have to look at the life cycle of a drug so that it is analyzed and tested even after being put on the market. I am saying that there are certain fears.

I believe that in a democracy we can express these fears. To show our good faith, we will vote for the bill to be sent to committee. My intention is not to be negative. It may be a good idea, but is it the best idea? Perhaps the intentions are good. The intention is still there. However, perhaps some amendments could be introduced. The minister may find that it is a good idea to have certain safeguards, for example.

We are worried about the criteria from the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements. We know very well that it wishes to reduce regulation. It would like to shorten the approval process for drugs and lower standards of protection in order to reduce drug development costs and the time required to bring drugs to market.

It is well known that Health Canada collaborates with this organization. Therefore, we simply want to establish certain safeguards. I believe that one of our responsibilities when studying the bill is to shed some light and ensure that we all understand what the witnesses have come to tell us.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I know government representatives are in the lobby watching this on TV. I would ask if the department could answer my two emails in writing, the one I referred to in my last question and the one I will read now. I also would like the member to answer these questions as well.

The email states:

The consequences of this Bill from, what I can understand, are far reaching. The search and seizure, as well as the fine possibilities are frankly scary. I feel that this Bill could be trying to limit our access to natural food products and potentially put natural food stores out of business. In these days of recession, this is hardly time to be putting legitimate businesses into receivership, not to mention the risk to Canadian rights and freedoms.

Here are my questions:

Will this new law be used to abuse and punish special interest groups, minorities, religious groups or others?

Why do bureaucrats want to bypass Parliament and Senate's approval to create new laws?

Why do bureaucrats want seizure warrants without judge approval?

With fines being increased a 1000 times, and seizing authority without a warrant, is Bill C-51 meant to bankrupt and silence its target audience?

Could the member provide some answers for my constituent who sent this email to me?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the goal of this bill is to reassure the public about food safety, the safety of therapeutic products and the safety of products for sale on the market to ensure that they do not contain toxic elements.

The industry must therefore conform to certain standards. We currently import many products from other countries that may not have the same standards as Canada does. We need to strike a balance with the viability of a company.

In the newspapers over the past number of months, we have seen recalls for toys and medications that put many peoples' lives in danger. In some cases, people did die. In my opinion, a balance must be struck. As the member said, if searches are conducted without a judge's approval, we should look at this in committee.

In my opinion, when a company puts peoples' lives in danger, we have to put the safety of people before the viability of a company that has been delinquent in terms of standards, regulations and the law. I believe this protects us.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Private Lumber Producers; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Ethics.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the first round of debate on Bill C-51, a bill to amend, in large measure, the Food and Drugs Act.

I bring to this debate a lot of skepticism but it is a healthy dose of skepticism based on the history of this whole aspect of Health Canada and our regulatory regime in Canada.

It will be no surprise to the House to learn that this is the fifth attempt by government in the last decade to overhaul the Food and Drugs Act. Four times before the Liberals attempted to do so and each time they failed. Why? They failed because the community spoke up and demanded more accountability from government and much clearer answers around accountability and regulatory authority.

Members will recall Bill C-80, a draft piece of legislation that was supposed to do much of what we have before us today. That bill was supposedly attempting to modernize our food and drug provisions, bring us into the 21st century and bring our rules and our regulations in line with modern day science.

It did not take too long for Canadians to quickly figure out that this was a ruse. It was an attempt to make Canadians believe the government would be on their side but was in fact loosening its hold over regulations, minimizing its role and moving us away from what has been an entrenched part of our history, and that is a bill that regulates the safety of food and drugs in such a serious manner that it is part of the Criminal Code.

That legislation operated on the basis of the do no harm principle, the precautionary principle, which means that we do not allow products on the market unless there is evidence that they are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the do no harm principle. It is not the buyer beware principle. It is not the risk management model that we have seen with the Liberals before and with the Conservatives today.

There is a marked difference between the do no harm principle and the risk management model. Do no harm means that we put people and safety first. The risk management model means that we can only go so far in ensuring Canadians' safety so we will allow the products on the market and then we will see what happens. It will be up to individual Canadians to determine whether or not it is worth taking the risk. It will be up to the corporations that produce the products to regulate themselves and decide if they are in line with the standards on paper.

The risk management model is not a proactive regulatory model that puts the needs and concerns of Canadians first. It is a model that puts the needs of big pharma, large corporations and global capital forces ahead of ordinary citizens. It is a model that makes guinea pigs out of Canadians.

We have had our share of offering up people as guinea pigs for large pharmaceutical corporations. I do not need to tell the House about the incidents in our past, especially when women were treated as guinea pigs. Thalidomide comes to mind as does Depo-Provera, breast implants and the list goes on.

We need to ask ourselves some questions. If we cut through all the rhetoric and tough talk about putting safety first and modernizing our system, are we better off? Are we any closer to the kind of system that Canadians thought we had and expected to have, which was abandoned by the Liberals?

It was abandoned when, in 1997, the former minister of health, Allan Rock, in his first gesture as minister of health, killed the federal drug laboratory, the only independent federal research lab in this country for testing on a post-market surveillance basis. It tested whether drugs that were on the market were safe and whether there were any negative consequences when that drug was combined with certain foods, other drugs or natural health products. It was a lab that performed a very important safety function in our country.

That was the beginning of a whole string of actions taken by the then minister of health, Allan Rock, and subsequent Liberal ministers of health to dismantle our regulatory system and move us away from the do no harm model toward a system where corporations pay for their drug approval processes. The bulk of the fees for our drug approval process comes from the corporations themselves.

Scientists at Health Canada have seen numerous incidents and they said that enough was enough. I think of Dr. Michèle Brill-Edwards who spoke up about being cornered to approve something she thought was not safe. She had to leave Health Canada to have any sense of integrity intact.

There were many others. Who can forget the whole group of veterinary scientists who stood tall about the tampering with food products and the adulteration and modification of veterinarian drugs? They were chastised, disciplined and lambasted by the Liberal government.

Whatever happened to the government being a bastion of independent, objective science that operated on the basis of the constituents it is supposed to serve? Whatever happened to government for the people, by the people and of the people? Nowhere is this more important than when it comes to the food we eat, the drugs we take because of medical conditions and the water we drink to sustain us and yet in those areas the government has abandoned us in large measure.

Today we are supposed to believe that the Conservative Government of Canada has such integrity, courage and vision that it is offering us a blueprint for a do no harm precautionary model around drugs and food. I bring to this debate a dose of healthy skepticism because I have seen nothing from the Conservatives to date that leads me to believe that the government is on the side of ordinary Canadian families and is not on the side, first and foremost, of the big corporations and their profit margins.

I have not seen that when it comes to housing, education, health care, women's equality, people with disabilities, the environment, jobs and child care. I have not yet seen the government stand up for Canadians

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Nor will we.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

My colleague from London—Fanshawe says, “Nor will we”. That is why I bring to this debate my concerns.

However, that is not to say that there are not some good provisions in this bill. I do recognize that the government has moved a significant distance from the days of the Liberals. Ironically, this legislation is more proactive than the Liberals ever presented to this House. However, it still has lots of problems and it still does not mean we will be supporting it but it is a step forward.

I would like to point to a couple of those initiatives. The bill has provisions for the recall of drugs and food products that have contaminants. The bill sets out hefty fines for corporations that do not reveal problems or side effects with drugs. There is new emphasis in this bill around ensuring that government has the tools to protect Canadians. I commend the government for those initiatives and I support those aspects of the bill that take us forward toward what I consider fundamental to this whole debate and that is a do no harm approach when it comes to food and drugs.

However, beneath those specific clauses and the fine words of the press release that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health presented to Canadians about safety first, there are enough concerns to make me and others suspicious of what the government is all about and where it is trying to lead us.

We only need to look at a couple of the areas that we have heard about to date. I hear some of my colleagues on the Conservative benches chuckling. I do not think they would chuckle if they were to listen to the words of Dr. Barbara Mintzes, who has brought to the attention of the House a clause in the bill that appears to move the government closer to direct to consumer advertising. That is so well documented that some of the officials have already said that they acknowledge that is a problem and maybe it needs to be addressed.

Why is that important? Do we want to see another $6.3 billion added to our pharmacare bill? Do we want to see big pharma pushing their drugs on Canadians without scientific basis? Do we want to see full-blown advertising in this country, as is the case in the United States?

Is it not enough that we have this grey area where drug companies can find a loophole and advertise all they want the lifestyle and create the appearance of something helping this person without naming the drug. We need only to look at the Viagra ads. They are pretty clear and impressive and they have led to all kinds of people demanding prescriptions for certain drugs from their doctors without necessarily a basis in terms of either their condition or the science available.

Direct to consumer advertising is just one of the problems in the bill that will make us very cautious about supporting it. Unless this loophole is closed and there is a firm commitment from the government to absolutely close the door to direct to consumer advertising, which not only means where we are today but going back and closing the door in terms of the loophole, there is no way in the world we should support the bill because of the ramifications it would have for our entire health care system, a system where costs for pharmaceuticals are now outstripping all other aspects of the system.

I will give another example. We have heard mentioned in the Chamber today the words “lifecycle approach” to drug surveillance or “progressive licensing”. It all sounds great, innovative and progressive but we need to realize that underneath it all there could very well be an agenda to speed up the approval of drugs at the front end and create the illusion of safety or the reality of safety at the other end.

However, what does it matter when we have already digested a drug that is not safe and has produced serious health consequences? Can it be that the government has listened to the drug companies when they say that they would rather deal with expensive lawsuits and pay out big money after being sued than to put in the money that is needed at the front end to ensure that the drugs are safe in the first place?

The real question we have to ask today is the one Alan Cassels and others asked in the media when the bill was released. Would this bill prevent another Vioxx? Would it stop a situation where hundreds of thousands of people are dying because they took a drug without realizing there were serious side effects unrelated to the condition for which they were taking it? What in this bill would stop that? Where is the inspection force? Where is the apparatus? Where is the infrastructure to make that happen? Where is the commitment from the government to deal with contaminated drugs coming into this country? How will the government handle another heparin, a contaminated drug from China? Is it prepared to send inspection officers to manufacturers in China? Is it prepared to put surveillance officers at the border? Is it prepared to take seriously the side effects that Canadians talk about? Is it prepared to act the minute there are serious reactions to drugs?

I hope that is the case. I do not know if that is the case. I do not know if this bill would do that. I want to keep an open mind about that. When we get to committee, I want to ask those questions. Witnesses will testify. We are going to seriously study that aspect. The fundamental bottom line when it comes to this bill is, is it going to stop another Vioxx? That is the question. How will it do it? Will it do it in time? Will it really make drug companies provide the information that they may have held in secret which may reveal something? Would it have been able to get out of Merck Frosst the information around Vioxx that it kept secret that would have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths?

Those are two areas of concern. There are others.

We have received hundreds of letters from people concerned about natural health products. We have been inundated with letters and communications expressing concern about this bill and whether or not there is a hidden agenda to bring natural health products under the rubric of drugs, after the huge battle we have had in this House for a decade to have a separate category for natural health products. This is something that the Conservatives took up with a vengeance some 10 years ago, which led to a health committee discussion and a report, which led to the establishment of a third category, which led to some reasonable approach to dealing with natural health products. Unfortunately, both the Liberals and the Conservatives since then have botched the whole plan. We now have hundreds of thousands of natural health products waiting in line to be assessed and licensed.

The question here is, is this a way to get around that? Is this an attempt to deal with the backlog like we have seen with immigration? Perhaps it is similar to the budget implementation bill and slipping immigration into that bill. We do not know.

Needless to say, when it comes to this area, there is nothing more important than how we protect people in terms of the drugs and the medications they have to take and the food they have to eat. It is the job of government to put safety first, to ensure that products on the market are as safe as possible. That means a proactive government, tough regulations, adequate resources, a government with the will to make safety fundamental and to put people before drug profits.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was astounded to listen to the member's presentation and the one from the Bloc as well. I have come to the conclusion that maybe we should have a special law that prohibits big corporations from distributing and selling prescription drugs to NDP members and their supporters, and maybe Bloc members as well, because we would not them to take something they feel is unscientific and would not have any benefit.

Let us be clear. For every drug cleared through the clinical trial process, there are literally thousands of drugs that do not get to first base. This is not a slam dunk process and it costs an awful lot of money. There are a lot of other safeguards. The EU has a clinical process that is very tough. The Japanese have one that is very tough. The Americans have one that is very tough. If manufacturers fail in the United States, they get through the entire process and get a drug approved but if they make a mistake, they can be financially ruined by the American tort system.

However, for members of this House to say that we are just allowing drugs on to market without any due diligence or any comprehension for public safety and that there is some great conspiracy between members of Parliament and the drug companies to foist all these poisonous and toxic drugs on people is total nonsense. I cannot believe the member actually believes that. I do not want to disagree too strongly with her opinion because it might insinuate that I am challenging her intelligence.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter, not a laughing matter. It has to be debated in the context of the health and well-being of Canadians. I make my comments with all seriousness and based on significant input from many Canadians.

As I also said, we will pursue every one of those concerns at committee to determine the legitimacy. No one is making generalizations without basis in fact. No one is casting aspersions without any reason.

We are here today with one of the most important pieces of legislation this Parliament has seen in a long time. We are questioning on the basis of evidence that has been provided to us. I do not need to tell anyone how many Canadian lives are put at risk every day because we do not have an adequate safety system right now. All I have to do is read through the papers and list off numerous cases.

Maybe the member is interested in this one, if he is not interested in some of the others. It is a recall order for a product for erectile dysfunction. This is Libidus, an unauthorized product promoted on the manufacturer's website as treating erectile dysfunction, saying it does not produce health risks. Well it does. Where is the government?

How about Evra, a birth control product for women, a patch that produces blood clot risks. Why is that? Why are young women at risk right now as we speak?

What about the drug to quit smoking that came out not too long ago, Champix, which produces all kinds of psychiatric side effects?

What about as I mentioned, heparin, in which contaminants were found after production in China?

What about all of these examples? Does it not matter? Should Canadians not feel safe? Is that not what we are here for? It is not to put people at the will of the marketplace and let them take chances. It is about trusting government, and if we cannot trust government when it comes to the safety of the drugs we have to take and the food we have to eat, then when can we trust government?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from Prince Albert, I actually love the loony left. The loony left allows average Canadians to see the ridiculousness of the arguments. I commend the member on the passion of her case, but I think the member knows that she is mistaken on numerous points including the suggestion that products or drugs coming onto the market are less safe. This bill does not deal with that. The drugs that have come onto the market are under the same regime with or without this bill. That is important for the member to know.

On the issue of direct consumer advertising, the member also knows that this government is in court to prevent direct advertising of pharmaceuticals to the Canadian market. The member knows that and this bill in fact strengthens the government's position on that.

I would also like to read to the member proposed section 2.3 of the bill:

The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the health and safety of the public and encourage accurate and consistent product representation by prohibiting and regulating certain activities in relation to foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics.

We can see that the intent is in the best interests of Canadians. I would ask the member to put aside the worries about the black helicopters, put away the tinfoil hats and come to committee with an open mind. All the other parties are. We are. If there are reasonable suggestions for amendment, we will listen to them. Will the member come to committee with an open mind and listen to the facts and read the bill for what it is, an improvement to the health and safety of Canadians?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, you will know that I have already said that we come to this whole process with an open spirit, wanting to know if in fact the substance of the bill meets the rhetoric of the government. We enter the process willingly and with open minds.

I just wish the hon. member were open to some of the concerns being raised because when he suggests that this is about the loony left speaking, he is insulting thousands of Canadians across the country who are raising concerns. He is actually casting aspersions on Dr. Mary Wiktorowicz. He is casting aspersions on Joel Lexchin, on Dr. Barbara Mintzes, on Dr. Steve Morgan and Alan Cassels, many people who came to our committee and expressed their concerns. So, I hope he is open and I hope he is willing to actually amend the bill when those concerns have been substantiated.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, another one upon whom the Conservatives could have cast aspersions is one of my constituents who asked questions. I wanted to ask the government, but it is not putting up any speakers, just the minister who introduced the bill, so I cannot ask the questions. Maybe the member could answer just three concerns that this constituent put forward.

Will this new law be used to abuse and punish special interest groups, minorities, religious groups or others? Why do the bureaucrats want seizure warrants without judge approval? With fines being increased a thousand times and seizing authority without a warrant, is Bill C-51 meant to bankrupt and silence its target audience?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those are all questions that need to be addressed by the government and vetted at committee. I certainly hope the member will encourage those who have raised these concerns to present them in writing to the committee or in fact to attend our committee hearings.

I hope that we will have a wide open, serious, indepth review of the bill in terms of all of its aspects, because when it comes to judicial oversight and RCMP investigations, as he has mentioned, these are very serious issues. When we are talking about direct to consumer advertising, progressive licensing, natural health products, oversight, investigative forces and discretionary powers, all of those issues are critically important in an area of such fundamental importance.

I look forward to a very serious debate and indepth discussion on this bill.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when I was referring to the loony left, I was only referring to the members I sit beside on my right. I note that you are not one of those members, Mr. Speaker.

Canadians want their government to do the best job possible to ensure the safety of foods, health and consumer products. We committed to meeting this expectation in the Speech from the Throne. The bill that we are now debating is an important part of meeting that commitment. It is a major component of the food and consumer safety action plan, which the Prime Minister announced in December.

The plan seeks to modernize and strengthen our food, consumer and health products safety system. It is a plan that is now supported by a two year funding commitment of $113 million, announced in budget 2008. It is a plan which shows that the government is taking product safety seriously and is taking action.

Our plan takes a new approach to food and product safety, based on active prevention to stop as many problems as possible before they occur, targeted oversight so the government can keep a closer watch over the products that pose a higher risk to health and safety, and a rapid response so that we can take action more quickly and effectively to the problems that do occur.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

The next step in the plan is updating our product safety legislation. As a result, Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act , is now before the House. It has become very clear to the government that the Food and Drugs Act needs to be modernized. The act is now more than 50 years old and it has simply not kept pace with modern expectations or standards.

Given the significance of the task, our effort has required discussions with stakeholders. We have heard that it is not good enough for our laws to focus largely on one stage in the health products life cycle. Yes, it certainly makes sense to assess health products carefully before they reach market, and today we are doing that vigorously. Bill C-51 does not propose to change that.

Instead, it seeks tools to conduct ongoing assessments of risks and benefits, even after the product is in use by Canadians. Instead of only focusing on products before they reach Canadians, we want to require companies to provide information throughout a health products' full life cycle.

Under the bill, and every step of the way, we will be able to ask whether a product's risks outweigh the benefits. This means that consumers and health professionals will have access to more and better information. They will be able to make better informed decisions about the safety and the use of the products.

Second, it seeks to anchor the safety planning in law. The reality is that the vast majority of companies already do plan for safety. They know it is just good, responsible business to do so, and with more information made available, it will be possible to update plans for improving safety to reflect new data or emerging concerns.

With Bill C-51, the government will have greater information. With greater knowledge we can work with companies and health professionals to better protect the safety of all Canadians.

With provisions that support greater openness and transparency in the regulatory system, Canadians can access the information they need about a product, the risks and the benefits, to ensure that they are making informed choices for themselves and their families.

We can use greater knowledge to target our oversight and we can use it to learn about problems as early as possible to respond more rapidly to better safeguard the health of Canadians.

This bill also accounts for the fact that today we receive many products from abroad. As a result, it would provide for modern inspection authorities and new strategies to oversee the safety of imported products. This focus on prevention is critical. Our focus on information is also essential to supporting rapid responses by the government when problems do occur.

Through Bill C-51 we are seeking the power to order a recall of a product that poses a safety threat. I want to mention one example of safety risks, what experts call “adverse drug reactions”. That is the health system term for people reacting negatively to a drug.

Under Bill C-51 we are seeking the authority to work with the provinces and territories to enhance the reporting of adverse drug reactions from hospitals. This would go a long way in helping detect safety problems earlier and the sooner we know, the more rapidly we can respond and better protect Canadians from unsafe health products.

I do not want to suggest that the modernization of the Food and Drugs Act will mean a night and day kind of change for most health products or companies. They do a good and reasonable job now. The vast majority of industry takes consumer safety very seriously. It is only a small percentage that acts irresponsibly and this is who we seek to protect Canadians from. In the process, we will allow law-abiding Canadian businesses to compete on a more level playing field and we will also target those who act irresponsibly with steep penalties.

Today, a serious incident under the Food and Drugs Act can just receive a $5,000 fine. Under Bill C-51, we are seeking to raise that up to $5 million because the health of Canadians is worth it.

The Government of Canada is taking consumer safety seriously and taking action. Many partners across the health system share our commitment to this direction, including consumer representatives. We believe all parties should support the direction set out in Bill C-51. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to support Bill C-51, so we can modernize the health and food product safety for Canadians.

We have all listened to the debate today and the health committee will have another opportunity to listen. The government will listen and, there is no doubt about it, the government will act to protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have just started debating this bill and I have received many emails from constituents and organizations that represent natural health products.

Because Bill C-51 would amend the Food and Drugs Act, and one really has to look at the Food and Drugs Act while looking through the bill, I want to raise just one of the concerns, which is that many natural health products that have been sold in Canada for decades would become unavailable and remaining products would cost much more under clauses 13 and 18.7 of the bill.

Clause 8 replaces sections 17 to 21 of the act, but clause 13 states:

No person shall conduct a controlled activity unless they are authorized by an establishment licence to do so.

It creates now, I believe, a licensing requirement. I do not see the details on licensing. I assume that licensing is either included under the Food and Drugs Act, in the appendices or regulations, but the member will appreciate when someone makes that assertion, there must be an answer. If the allegation is that these products will not be available because they will require a licence, and the provisions of getting a licence may be so onerous, lengthy or specific, that it may in fact result in there not being the availability of certain natural health products.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is aware of that issue and whether he can provide an answer to the concerns of those who rely on these products.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill looks at the risk profile of particular products and if the risk is low there is nothing to worry about. The only time that there will be something to be concerned about is if the product is dangerous to Canadians.

If the product is dangerous to Canadians, there are going to be hefty fines and I think Canadians expect that. They expect the government to ensure that the products on the shelves are safe. I hope the member does not disagree with that.

There are many natural health products that are healthy, that improve the quality of people's lives. Those will be okay. It is the small percentage of products that harm or even kill people that we are concerned with.

Right now the minister does not have the ability to require that products be removed from shelves and the fine is a maximum of $5,000. We do not think that $5,000 is enough. That is why the maximum fine would be $5 million. Canadians support that and Canadians support the government protecting Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows which questions I am going to ask because I have already asked them, but the government did not have any members on the list so there was no one to ask and I am sure he has his answers ready.

The questions are from two constituents. The first one is basically worried about access to natural health products being protected and thinks that this bill gives police state powers in taking those away.

The other constituent is asking whether the new law will be used to abuse and punish special interest groups, minorities, religious groups or others and why do bureaucrats want to bypass Parliament's approval to create new laws? Why does it want seizure warrants without a judge's approval? With fines being increased a thousand times and seizing authority without a warrant, is the bill meant to bankrupt and silence its target audience?

I am sure the parliamentary secretary has well thought out answers.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that there is some sort of police state initiative does a disservice to the people who actually live in a police state. I just find that just over the top and not helpful to the debate. The only products that people will see affected are products that are dangerous to Canadians. If people put a product on the shelf or market a product that is dangerous to Canadians, they can expect to experience the full force of the law. Under this legislation, that includes a $5 million potential penalty--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I am sorry. I am going to have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. We want to resume debate, so that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has some time.

The hon. member for Kildonan--St. Paul has the floor.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-51, an act proposing amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.

First, this proposed legislation is but one element of our government's action for meeting an important commitment.

In October's throne speech we committed to taking action on food and product safety to ensure Canadians had confidence in the quality and safety of what they buy.

Following this, the Prime Minister announced the food and consumer safety action plan last December. This is a comprehensive plan with the goal of modernizing and strengthening Canada's safety system for food, health and consumer products.

In February, budget 2008 invested $113 million for two years to support the plan in meeting its purpose. Now we are taking the next steps by introducing important legislation.

Along with introducing the proposed new Canada consumer product safety act, we have also brought in Bill C-51 to amend the Food and Drugs Act. Taken together, these two complementary pieces of proposed legislation include measures that will further protect the health and safety of Canadians, and this bill is all about that.

They propose to do this by stressing: first, active prevention to stop as many problems as possible before they occur, second, targeted oversight so the government can keep a closer watch over products that pose a higher risk to health and safety; and third, rapid response so we can take action more quickly and effectively to problems that do occur.

I want to begin by noting upfront that despite the need to update it, how durable our Food and Drugs Act has been over many years. Let me provide a bit of history.

Although certain food laws were in place before Confederation, the first federal legislation dealing with the issue of food safety was enacted in 1874. It is interesting to note that the United States did not pass similar legislation until 1906.

Canada's 1874 law did not receive its main impetus from adulterated food. What apparently forced the legislation were the large quantities of grossly adulterated liquor being consumed. Parliament was besieged with requests to do something about the situation. Hence in January 1875 an Act to Prevent the Adulteration of Food, Drink and Drugs came into effect. In 1920, just in time for America's prohibition act and the roaring 20's, it was superseded by our Food and Drugs Act.

That the world has changed since the 1920s is certainly an understatement. In fact, it has changed a great deal since the 1950s when the act was last updated. While the act has proven resilient, it is now 50 years old and definitely in need of updating.

Our foods and health products now come from the four corners of the earth. Moreover, new technologies and production practices have radically changed the industry. It is also the case that consumers today are more health conscious and have higher expectations about the food and drugs they purchase.

While on the whole food quality has increased, incidents of contamination are by no means rare. Furthermore, production and technological advances have created new risks and challenges for food inspection and oversight mechanisms.

Today, however, modernizing our food safety system means adopting a more integrated and proactive approach. Moreover, any improvements made today should lead to more extensive information on food and drug risks being provided to the Canadian public. They should involve the food industry and the consumer as well as government in addressing risk. This only makes for greater safety. The proposed amendments should help streamline and provide more consistent regulatory mechanisms across all sectors.

Bill C-51 would do all of these things and more, and I will elaborate.

The government's proposed amendments will make the Food and Drugs Act much more proactive. Let us look, for example, at the amendments in the bill, focusing on the food regulatory system. They will permit us to focus on identifying where potential risks may be introduced in the food system and on taking more active steps to prevent food safety issues. Moreover, the amended act would extend its coverage prior to the point where food is actually sold. In fact, the amended act would apply to food from the moment it arrived in Canada to the point of sale. With these—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time has expired. The hon. member has five minutes left in her time when the House returns to this bill.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to Bill C-51.

As always, the Liberal Party aims to improve the safety and health of Canadians.

We support measures that strengthen the regulatory process so that Canadians can have access to the safest and best foods and therapeutic products.

The drugs on the market are not a great risk for the health and safety of Canadians.

That being said, we see this bill and the other bill as a huge missed opportunity. As often happens with the government, it is what is not in the bill that is remarkable, including just taking out the whole section of the bill on the pride of Canadian health policy, which is the interdiction against directed consumer advertising.

We look again to a government that seems to be more interested in business than in patients. Although we believe there is a need for the minister to have the ability to take unsafe health and consumer products off the market if the companies are unwilling to do so, the powers given to the minister in this bill are unbelievably unreasonable. It is not putting in place the kind of scientific advice that would be very important in terms of a minister being able to administer the Food and Drugs Act based on evidence in science and not ideology, and the way the government's friends in business are behaving on just about everything else.

It is important that the Food and Drugs Act be updated. Up until now, as everyone knows, the product safety system has functioned purely on a voluntary basis. If a product is dangerous or poses a health risk, corporations can issue a recall.

This bill would grant the minister the power to enforce the recalls rather than depend on the voluntary system. Certainly, those of us in the health committee have heard this from many witnesses, including the department itself, that these are powers that the minister must have in the event of a recalcitrant company.

The bill would also grant the minister the power to seek an injunction, to enforce regulatory compliance through the Federal Court. This is a faster avenue for enforcement rather than the current system which fills up the courts by addressing each non-compliance matter at trial.

As well, the bill would improve the surveillance of therapeutic products both before and after they reach the market. This could have the effect of helping critical drugs, such as cancer therapies, get to the market quicker and yet remove them just as quickly if significant adverse reactions or incidents are reported. This has been very much the wish of a number of the groups, from cancer to HIV-AIDS, to both the providers as well as the patients.

As we have heard in committee many times, people are very concerned about hurrying and having less safeguards because we are now going to commit to doing a much better job post-market. We need to be very clear and it is the reason for the kind of scrutiny this bill would require, to make sure there is absolutely no less safe drugs coming on to the market because of this hurry up approach that is important in these very special drugs.

Because of the substantial regulatory powers the minister would have, it is obviously going to be important to study these powers to ensure transparency, effectiveness and accountability. We will see, in some aspects of this, that it seems a bit remarkable that the minister would be able to stop a clinical trial midway through without having information from the very people running the trial. There are things that just do not make a great deal of sense unless we in committee find out exactly how the government expects to carry this out.

The idea is that the Minister of Health can suspend a clinical trial authorization or the terms and conditions other than a prescribed term or condition or the suspension to prevent injury after giving the holder of the authorization an opportunity to make representation, and to suspend a clinical trial authorization if the minister is of the opinion that an immediate suspension is necessary.

My experience is that this only comes to the minister from the people supervising the trial, who are scientists. I hope we will hear in committee exactly how the minister is planning to carry this out.

It is interesting that time and time again these powers to the minister do not seem to have any provisions within the act to find out what science or which scientists the minister would be relying on in order to exercise these substantial new powers as given to him in the bill.

From licences to the discontinuing of clinical trials, to the disclosure of personal information to a person or government that carries out functions related to the protection or promotion of human health without the consent of the individual to whom the personal information relates, if the disclosure is necessary, is worrying. We will need to know from both privacy experts and from many other witnesses, particularly, I would hope, patient groups, what they think of that, as well as what they think about disclosing confidential business information to a government or to the following persons without the consent of persons to whose business or affairs the information relates without notifying that person. This is something the committee will have to look at very seriously.

Even in clause 24, it says that the minister can recall a therapeutic product or cosmetic. It also says that the minister may authorize a person to sell a therapeutic product or cosmetic even if the minister has directed a person to recall it. This will somehow need a great deal of explanation at the committee. I look forward to that.

We are prepared to allow the bill to go to the committee, but it is extraordinarily important, yet again, that the stakeholder reaction to the bill is very much around the elimination of the prohibition on direct to consumer advertising.

Barbara Mintzes, the health policy expert and professor at UBC Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, has stated clearly on the website, straight.com, that the amendment would introduce a loophole that could allow pharmaceutical companies to directly advertise drugs to consumers, a practice that is currently illegal in Canada. The proposed new wording of the bill tabled in Parliament on April 8 says:

No person shall advertise a prescription therapeutic product to a person other than a practitioner unless they are authorized by the regulations to do so.

In the bill there is a general prohibition that covers direct to consumer advertising for drugs. That prohibition is now gone, which means the barrier of introduction of direct to consumer advertising through the regulations, because there is a sort of general prohibition in the bill, is gone, according to Barbara Mintzes.

Direct to consumer advertising and that prohibition has set Canada apart from our neighbours to the south in a very proud way. I am not sure why the minister is now trying to turn this around. Anyone who accidentally watches American television sees that barrage of advertising. It means people go to their doctors thinking that a certain drug will have a certain benefit, and we know that this increases the likelihood of harm as we learned the hard way with the Vioxx case.

Vioxx was brought on to the market for a very special group of patients, patients who had arthritis, but also had serious problems with their stomachs. The drug was to be just a boutique drug to deal with the patients with serious arthritis, but also for whom those drugs were too hard on their gastrointestinal tract. Instead, the drug was marketed widely to the whole population and people with arthritis thought they should be on that drug. That is when we found the drug had serious cardiac effects.

This would be a risk that one would take based on perhaps an equally serious gastrointestinal side effect for people whose ability to function would be improved by Vioxx. However, this was not the intent of the drug when it was put on the market in the first place. Now because of the serious increased risk of heart attack and stroke, it ended up causing much concern in terms of both life and disability.

It is so clear that the newer, better drug can have an effect on patients when there are cheaper, older drugs that are better, safer and have the same effect. From antibiotics to antidepressants to the kinds of drugs that are used around cholesterol, we want to ensure that physicians and patients have a real conversion about what really is the best and are not unduly influenced by television advertising. This is evidence based practice. Yet, again, we are finding the government preferring ideology and business over evidence. The evidence is that direct to consumer advertising is wrong and bad for patients. The bill would eliminate this serious prohibition on the evidence based policy and evidence based practice.

It is important therefore that we look to what other structures need to be placed around these undo powers to the minister. We need to look very seriously at the kind of advice the minister gets in order to do his best job. I have long been a believer in the fact that ministerial advisory committees need to give transparent advice to the minister. Whether it is the scientists that list endangered species, it is very important that politicians do the politics, scientists do the science and that the transmission of information from the scientists to the politician must be done in a transparent way such as the citizens of Canada can understand.

I believe people can understand why a minister might not list all 11 species on an endangered species list or species at risk list because of the politics, the economy and the reality in a certain community. However, politicians have to do their job and explain why they have made that decision when the scientists have said X and the politician or the minister has decided to do a version of X or even Y.

It is really important that we look to the models like NICE, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence in Britain, and the way in which it has involved citizens in the decisions. The bill very definitely needs resources to explain how the minister will do this.

As a family physician who did obstetrics, I quite often was at the hospital waiting for a baby to arrive during the national news. It would be quite clear that a drug would be recalled while I was not watching the news. The patients would arrive the next morning and tell me they were on whatever drug had just been recalled. I would have no information about it. A letter would arrive from Health Canada three days later telling me the drug had been recalled.

We have to get into the 21st century. If the minister is to have the powers to recall a drug or product, then the minister has to be able to communicate with the people who prescribe the drugs, not three days later after someone has lost his or her life because in that 72 hour window the doctor accidentally prescribed the recalled drug.

It will be extraordinarily important that the databases and the kind of two way communication between provinces and the federal government exist. Who actually is in charge of speaking to the doctors of the country about these products at risk? How do we get in touch with them? Until we have the resources for the infostructure, how will we get the minister and the ministry into this century to communicate with the people who count on him for timely advice on things as important as this?

It will be extremely important for the government to look at what the federal drug agency does in the United States and why that is a free-standing agency. The health protection of our country is half the people at Health Canada now. We have to decide whether we want to put a science based and a real structure in place for the drug evaluation post-market surveillance, working toward a common formulary.

Our national pharmaceutical strategy is in disarray. There are a few working groups, but there is really very little action toward the part of the 10 year commitment for health, which was in a national pharmaceutical strategy in the 2004 accord with the provinces.

The health minister has cancelled the next meeting of his counterparts supposedly for June. I do not know how we can do any of these things unless the provinces, territories and their health ministers feel they have a partner with the federal government. It will be extraordinarily important that we look at this, like we did in the very sensitive bill on reproductive technology, to ensure that any regulation must come back to the health committee so we understand the nuances and the decisions taken in the regulations, which can be so important to people's lives. It must come back the committee that has studied the bill and has now done this important study.

It is a bit rich, in the middle of a study on post-market surveillance, that the government has decided to table the bill without the information, without the recommendations of the very committee that has studied this. It was a bit shocking to hear that even the working group on the national pharmaceutical strategy, the working group on real world drug safety, was not even consulted in what should be in the bill. Yet again we have this top-down, “father knows best, take it or leave it, trust us you will like it” approach from the government. It is extraordinary that when all of the witnesses came, when all the provinces and territories and working groups existed, that the government would not take counsel from these people who study this and who know it.

Also, almost every member of Parliament over these last weeks, since the bill was tabled, have been inundated by calls to their constituency offices on the natural health product risk. People using these products are worried again that their products are not understood because of the issue around health claims. We need to seriously look again at what the minister is considering in terms of natural health products and how we regulate these things. Some products have been used for thousands of years, but without a clinical trial. It is not evidence based, but Canadians have the right to be wrong on these things. They also have the right to be right in terms of the products that work for them. In studying the bill we want to ensure people have patient and client freedom.

These changes are just not good enough. Canada needs a national food policy. At the same time as we get this tinkering around the edges, we have from melamine in dog food, to re-labelled snap peas from China, to mushrooms from China called “product of Canada” because they have been sliced here. We have orange juice called “product of Canada” because Canadian water was added to it.

The government needs to sit down with all government departments that deal with food in this country, such as agriculture, fisheries, industry and international trade, and with the producers and the food security people.

We need a national food policy. We cannot even tinker with things in this bill unless we can actually have a commitment from the government to get on with it and protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I really enjoyed my colleague's presentation.

However—I hope she will agree with the Bloc Québécois—it is important for us that this bill be sent to committee so that we can call in as many experts as possible to fully explore this. I know that the member has experience in the health field, and so I would like to ask her a question.

Just replacing “drugs” by “therapeutic products” and adding to the terms “therapeutic products”, “drugs, devices, cells, tissues, organs” and so on, will probably result in a debate.

Is the member comfortable with the proposed definition for “therapeutic products”, or does it warrant a debate in committee?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. Semantics are very important. The words “therapeutic products” are possibly clearer. I appreciate your suggestion, and I will share it with the committee.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in this House to discuss another health bill. Health is a very important subject to me. I am particularly interested in it because I know just how important and necessary health is to living with dignity.

Although Bill C-51 is very important and long overdue, although we have been calling on the government to review the whole issue of medicines, drugs and therapeutic devices for a long time, and although we have called on the government to do so a number of times, we will vote to send this bill to committee to be thoroughly examined. As my colleague said earlier, and as our other colleague who worked on the health file a long time said, this is much too important to let a few people decide the fate of thousands of human beings, Canadians and Quebeckers, who will rely on our decisions to keep them in good health.

A few things in this bill, or at least the draft we received, worry me. I am almost positive that some things worry a number of my colleagues as well. For example, the bill states that the Minister of Health would have the authority to pre-approve health products that have not yet received final approval. That worries me. It gives a lot of power to a minister, to one individual.

Bill C-28, which was passed a few years ago, had the same provisions for other products, such as pesticides. I do not know what became of that act, if the Minister of Health has had the opportunity to grant special permission to companies to put pesticides on the market before they should be. However, recently, pesticides have been found to be very hazardous to our health, to the health of our children and young people, whom we thought were safe playing outside during the summer. We thought that Health Canada had taken all the precautions to ensure the products were healthy, safe, and harmless.

If we are going to give the Minister of Health that much power, we have to make sure that we provide a strong framework for exercising that power in this bill. We have been hearing about amending the terms. These days, with so many advances in biotechnology and life sciences, we agree that we need to ensure that our health and health products legislation reflects these new realities. People with specific needs, such as those with HIV, might benefit from new experimental drugs. These drugs should be made available to them as quickly as possible, because in many cases, it is a matter of life or death.

Although we recognize the importance of reviewing the entire Food and Drugs Act, we want to be absolutely sure that the act contains provisions to ensure that the health of our fellow citizens will be taken into account responsibly.

There are some other things about this bill that bother me, and once again, I am sure that my colleagues from Québec and Verchères—Les Patriotes will see to it that these things are considered and debated by the Standing Committee on Health and that the people who have something to say about it will be invited to testify before the committee.

There is more to this than inviting experts in pharmaceuticals, doctors, parliamentarians, and departmental officials to debate this bill. The people this will affect—groups representing patients, hospitals and pharmacists—must be involved and consulted to develop the most comprehensive bill possible for health and therapeutic products.

There is something else in this bill that I am worried about. As my colleague said earlier, “therapeutic product” means

(a) a drug,

(b) a device,

(c) cells, tissues or organs that are distributed or represented for use in

(i) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, in human beings or animals, or

(ii) restoring, correcting or modifying the body structure of human beings or animals or the functioning of parts of the bodies of human beings or animals, or

(d) a combination of two or more of the things referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c);

A few years ago, there was an epic battle over breast implants. At the time, breast implants fell into the category of specialized medical devices. Now they are in with therapeutic products. It was already very complicated and we did not have much information on the ingredients and the safety of breast implants. Now they are being put in with all therapeutic products or devices.

When they talk about cells, are they talking about stem cells? What are they talking about? When they talk about tissue, are they talking about the new grafts that can be made with one’s own tissue? There clearly need to be a lot of very apposite, very transparent rules on this.

I think that the health minister would have far too much power. The bill says that the health minister would have the power to modify the regulations. That is saying a lot because all the definitions in this bill are basically regulations. The health minister would have the ability, therefore, to change the regulations without coming before Parliament. That is very serious and we should be very worried about it.

There are also things that the minister could change not just in the regulations but also in regard to product labelling, purity standards, the way in which clinical trials are conducted, and the exemption of various products from the legislation.

I think that this means giving a tremendous amount of power to the man or woman holding the position of health minister. It means giving an awful lot of power to someone when we know we do not presently have a health minister who is very far to the left or very suited to making such decisions. After all, what is at stake here are the lives of our fellow citizens.

I am very concerned when I see a Minister of Health rise to vote against a motion asking Canada to recognize and abide by its commitment, as it has always done, to people sentenced to death in other countries. I am still very concerned about that. I thought that health ministers were supposed to be worried about the health of people and their survival.

It makes me wonder when I see that and then see a bill giving these people so much power. As a citizen, first of all, and as a user of medications and therapeutic products, I have a right and duty to wonder about these things. Do we really want to give one person the authority to approve a medication that has not been proven so that it can be marketed more quickly because it supposedly has more benefits than adverse side effects?

We saw this with Celebrex. It is still on the market because it supposedly has a greater upside than downside. However, people died of it before we knew why. We often see that. We did not use to see any advertising for drugs in Quebec and Canada. Under this legislation, though, there are some grey areas, some aspects that are incredibly hazy, and we could see more and more advertising. I am also very concerned about that.

To relax, we probably all watch television in the evening when we get home. In the course of the evening—in the space of maybe two hours—we will see at least two or three ads for Viagra or Cialis. That is what we see. To my way of thinking, these are drugs. Why is it that we see these ads when they are supposed to be prohibited? Various television stations agree to run them because Health Canada does not do any monitoring to determine whether various companies' and pharmaceutical firms' ads meet the criteria, which are, or were, clearly set out.

Now, with this new bill, the criteria would be much less clear. Pharmaceutical firms would have much more freedom and latitude to promote their products. This worries me. Many people are influenced by advertising messages. Our Conservative friends keep telling us that we are wrong, we are crazy, we are not listening, we do not understand, we will never accomplish anything, we are impotent. They know that repeating a message drives it home. In the same way, people who watch television are influenced by repeated messages: “Cialis will make you happy”, “Alesse will make you happy”, “This will make you happy”. We come to believe these statements and we ask our doctor for a prescription, even if we do not need the drug. We ask for the drug because it looks so wonderful to be able to skip down the street singing and arrive home to be greeted by our smiling wife. We want the same treatment.

We will have to be very careful about the decisions we make regarding this bill. While we agree that it should be referred to committee, I can assure the House that we will do our duty responsibly and make every effort to amend the clauses that could result in harm to the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Bloc member's analysis of the bill. One of the concerns she spoke to is the fact that the regulations, which will allow for advertisements, also in my mind could open another door, and that is for lobbying of the cabinet. It is around the cabinet table where these decisions may well be made and that is a cause for grave concern about the kind of negative influence that could happen in regard to our government.

We all know what it has been like on the Hill for a number of years with regard to lobbying, and we all know how the government of the day has come in with the promise of accountability and being very straightforward. It strikes me as strange that we now have this bill which would allow those who are around the cabinet table to make such a serious decision. Would the member concur with that idea?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, we absolutely must make sure there is as little advertising as possible about drugs and their derivatives.

Again, young girls have acquired a certain drug, a birth control pill, because they saw reports and ads on a product, Diane-35, which is extremely harmful and has contributed to the death of a number of people in Europe. This product has been banned in Europe and is no longer sold there. However, it is not banned here and is still available for sale. Despite all the precautions we should be taking, it is still available here.

This product is advertised in bus shelters, at bus stops and in all the magazines. They are reminder ads, since that is allowed, as is advertising the price, the quantity and the name of the product. Nonetheless, when both types of ads are put together a few days apart—or weeks in the case of magazines—people are smart enough to make the connection quite quickly and easily.

It has been proven that the drugs advertised the most on television are the most requested at the doctor's office. Doctors prescribe more of those drugs. There is an immediate cause and effect relationship that is very easy to see. Our government must not allow this indulgent and negligent approach. Rules absolutely must be established to stop this from happening.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for her analysis of the bill. This afternoon, I received a letter from one of my constituents in Vaudreuil-Soulanges talking about the need to make sure that products entering Quebec and Canada meet standards that are similar to the ones that are applied here in Canada.

I have a question for my colleague concerning the need for transparency in relation to products. Consumer protection associations have told us that at present, the registry used to record complaints would only be for health care institutions and the public could not contribute to it and have their complaints addressed. As well, we are concerned about the Minister’s power to change the bill as he pleases without having to go through the House.

Consumers’ associations in Quebec and Canada are also asking for clarification regarding the confidential business information aspect.

I would like my colleague to remind us once again how important it is to be transparent when it comes to labelling and product content, and how important it is to give consumers an opportunity to file complaints.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

In fact, that is a subject I did not address: the subject of confidentiality and everything relating to drugs that are approved, not approved and awaiting approval. There again, there are major roadblocks for ordinary consumers and people who want to know what they are consuming, who want to know how and why they consume it, and most importantly, if it is a drug, a therapeutic device or a surgical device, whether it is harmless or not.

Some day, and I hope that day comes soon, we are going to have to adopt some clear rules. There is a lot of talk about transparency, but we are going to have to get beyond talking and have some actual transparency.

We have been talking about transparency since I first came to this House, but everything is just as opaque everywhere, in all fields, as if no one had ever talked about transparency. People have to know, they have to be aware, they have to be sufficiently educated and informed about all the drugs and products they may take so they can make informed choices.

It is exactly the same thing with GMOs and therapeutic products. I referred earlier to essential oils in relation to Bill C-52. It is the same thing. Consumers have a right to know. Consumers seem to be very wise, because it is letters from consumers that are telling us to be careful and not let a minister do the work by himself and make decisions about a bill by himself.

This may not relate directly to the bill itself, but rather to the direction taken in the bill. If the minister can change the direction taken by a bill once it has been agreed to and passed, what point is there in sitting in this House, doing the essential work and drafting a bill like this to ensure that our fellow citizens, and consumers, have access to quality drugs and that their health is not in danger?

What point is there in doing all these studies and all this research, in bringing thousands of witnesses here, if the Minister of Health can ultimately get up one fine morning and say he no longer agrees with the direction taken in the bill and decide to change it? I think my colleague is right to be worried.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ethics; the hon. member for Davenport, Arts and Culture.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-51, which is being presented in tandem with Bill C-52, which I spoke to earlier.

Bill C-51 seeks to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It has some positive aspects. A bill to better protect consumers is long overdue. Canadians have suffered harm from recalled products and death from drugs that were approved for sale too quickly.

The Food and Drugs Act has been eroded over long years of the former government. Canadians, it seems to me, have lost confidence in the government's ability to protect their health. Perhaps it has to do with the former government's big love affair with large pharmaceutical firms, but whatever the cause, Canadians feel that their health is not being protected, and this is what we must address.

In its present form, the bill is hugely inadequate and there is much that is worrisome about it. I have received literally hundreds of emails and letters about the bill. I would like to read some of them because they provide some interesting insights on how Canadians feel right now.

The official intent of Bill C-51 is to fill in gaps in health protection and to ensure the safety of Canadians. To that end, the bill proposes to implement sweeping changes in how Health Canada will regulate drug products.

As I have said, there are fundamental aspects that are problematic and that will keep the bill from doing what it purports to do, which is protecting Canadians. Instead, some of what is in the bill could likely have an adverse effect on Canadians' health.

I would like to touch on a few subjects that the bill addresses. The first one relates to advertising. In the modification that the bill proposes, it would likely have the effect of providing an opportunity for drug manufacturers to bypass the advertising bans by applying for exemptions. This simple change is disturbing in that it would render the government vulnerable to lobby pressure by large pharmaceutical multinationals.

It is important for Canadians to have clear information about the health product they take. We should not reasonably expect companies to advertise their products and expect that they will do so to educate Canadians.

I want to refer to some testimony that was given at committee by an independent drug policy researcher from my city of Victoria. I stress “independent” because often when presentations are made at committee they are made by people who either have ties to pharmaceutical companies or push for policies that improve the profits of the companies. It is important to mention that this researcher, whose name is Alan Cassels, is an independent researcher. He made the following comments at committee recently:

The pharmaceutical industry spokespeople will tell you that they should be involved in the education of consumers about drugs, but let me show you how they choose to educate consumers. This “toe tag” ad appeared in many magazines and major newspapers across Canada. This one came from the National Post of February 20, 2004. It shows a toe tag hanging off a corpse with the headline, “What would you rather have, a cholesterol test or a final exam?” Here's another example, from Maclean's magazine, of the same ad.

These ads are probably the most egregious example of disease-mongering that this country has ever seen. The ads, which ran in both France and Canada, were the subject of a letter from the World Health Organization to the medical journal The Lancet, complaining that this kind of advertising is undoubtedly driving the inappropriate use of cholesterol-lowering drugs around the world.

This proposed policy would be a policy basically on disease-mongering. It is important to maintain our current ban on direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals but we need to go further than that. We actually need more strict control on the advertising of diseases. The industry might call it disease awareness but it may be closer to the truth to call it disease-mongering.

One place to start would be to ask Health Canada some hard questions. What is our policy around this so-called industry advertising? Do we collect data if this kind of advertising is driving the inappropriate use of pharmaceuticals? What research into this kind of approach has been commissioned? What other steps is Health Canada taking to control it? Instead of trying to deal with patients who may be dying from prescription drugs, how can we stop people from taking drugs they do not need in the first place?

The last question, a question that Mr. Cassels raised in committee, is very important. This is an aspect of proactive health, which we just do not do in Canada, that is inadequately funded and has not received enough resources, energy and thought.

We should not be allowing any shortcuts to advertising. Instead, we should be providing better information for patients. There is a dire need for Canadians to receive approved and regulated information provided by an independent, objective source that is free from profit driven industries that sell drugs. This bill would not do that.

At committee, the NDP will be seeking to ensure that there is no direct to consumer advertising and that it will be completely removed from the bill. We cannot allow that to happen.

Another aspect of the bill that is of concern is that it takes a radically different expedited approach to the drug approval process, which the government calls progressive licensing. Progressive licensing would have the effect of speeding up the process of new drugs to the Canadian marketplace. It sets up an ongoing life cycle approach without any new improvement to the pre-market testing of new drugs.

This is the first time a bill of this sort codifies the trade agreements, like NAFTA, for grounds for refusing to release information about safety and efficacy that companies submit in order to get their products approved. This clause is absolutely objectionable and needs to be removed and replaced by making transparency the default option.

If we want Canadians to take responsibility for their health, they must be able to make better informed decisions and that comes about with more awareness about what particular drugs do and having some choices in the drugs they are allowed to take.

One needs to ask whether this new provision would prevent similar recalls as occurred under Vioxx. Will it prevent another Vioxx type of recall? It appears highly unlikely. Therefore, my colleagues and I will be looking for dramatic changes on this aspect at committee as well.

Bill C-51 also raises the question about the speed with which drugs will be moved through the approval process. This really relates to parliamentary oversight and the kind of parliamentary oversight we should be requiring. The provisions in the bill would make it possible to grant conditional approvals, thereby getting new drugs to market faster than is possible under the current regulations. Pre-market safety requirements may be less stringent or even be bypassed all together according to the stipulations of the bill.

There also is no commitment in the bill to making the results of post-marketing studies public, which is another concern.

Another troubling aspect of the bill is that it would provide the Minister of Health and Health Canada with considerable discretionary authority that falls outside the purview of Parliament. In other words, Bill C-51 could effectively remove democratic oversight, bypassing elected officials in favour of allowing bureaucrats to enforce regulations that fall short of the standards Canadians deserve.

I spoke a little about the kind of information that is really important for Canadians to access in order to make crucial health decisions on the safety of the products they are taking. Perhaps the most onerous change that is being proposed in the bill relating to the Food and Drugs Act involves the provisions regarding natural health products. Many Canadians prefer to look for complementary strategies to stay healthy. I myself benefit from such products and it does help me to stay much healthier.

The provisions in the bill are worrisome because among the modifications proposed by the bill are radical changes to key terminology, for example, replacing the word “drug” with “therapeutic products” throughout the bill and therefore bringing the natural health industry under the scope of the Food and Drugs Act and Health Canada. This far-reaching change would give the Minister of Health broad powers to regulate all natural health and plant derived products and, in the process, restrict access to these products for Canadians.

Up to 60% of the natural health products currently on the market would be outlawed as a direct result of the enactment of Bill C-51. This would remove a lot of choices for Canadians.

From some of the many letters I have received, there is one from a medical doctor who says, “I'm a medical doctor and a doctor of Chinese medicine living and working in Victoria. I'm becoming concerned that the new Bill C-51 introduced by the health minister might affect the public's and my patients' access to natural health products in Canada”.

Indeed, the clauses in this bill would have a serious limiting effect.

It is not by succumbing to the big pharma lobby that we will achieve balance in better regulating natural health products. That is an important piece: we must have a better balance. Perhaps we can do it by creating a third category. This something that the natural health industry has been calling for. Instead of buckling under to the big pharmaceutical lobby, it would simply have its own category, by itself, and regulations that do achieve that balance.

Another comment I have received which has concerned me is the following: “I and my family are opposed to Bill C-51 as it will restrict access and increase prices of natural health products we use regularly”. I think we are all aware that right now Canadians are having a more difficult time. Our economy is in decline. Many people are struggling to make ends meet and are using natural health products to stay healthy. Increasing the prices at this time would certainly not be helpful.

Another comment from one of my constituents states: “Regulations of natural health products should be separate from pharmaceuticals”. This is something that I think we will be asking the committee to look at.

Another comment that has been made is in regard to concern about how quickly this bill is being pushed through the process, disregarding recommendations made by many consumer public forums, health coalitions, and so on.

For the many people who suffer from chronic illnesses of various kinds, I think access to natural health products really keeps them functioning and protects their quality of life. This is what they are asking us to do. I will be asking members of the committee to look at this aspect of the bill very seriously to see if the draconian measures being proposed really warrant what is being asked. Merely selling garlic to someone would make it a drug product under this new definition. Does that make any sense? There are many other examples like that.

I see that I am running out of time, so I will conclude simply by saying that Canadians want to be able to use natural products to keep their families in good health as one of the many ways used to maintain health. Being forced to use a pharmaceutical option is not the way to go. That is something I am going to oppose.

I hope the committee will look at making these much needed amendments while protecting the overall purpose of the bill, which is to ensure that products sold to Canadians are safe.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for delivering such an eloquent speech on Bill C-51.

She explained very clearly a number of problems that are found in this legislation. I wonder if she could tell us more on the issue of drug advertising which, under the bill, would be authorized to a much greater extent than is currently the case. The fact is that this already creates a problem.

I would also like her to tell us a bit about the fact that the minister would really have a great deal of latitude to decide by himself whether he wants to change the thrust of the bill, or whether he is prepared to keep it as reviewed and probably amended by the Standing Committee on Health,.

I wonder if the hon. member could give us her thoughts on this.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her questions. The two issues she raised are indeed of great concern to me.

First, there is the issue of advertising. We can already see some television ads. Under the current legislation, the reasons behind such ads cannot be discussed. Under Bill C-51, however, exemptions or special permission may be sought.

Earlier, I gave the example of an absolutely appalling ad promoting a certain drug whose name escapes me, but the ad basically gives you a choice between keeping your cholesterol in check with that drug or dying. That is so far-fetched that it makes no sense.

What Canadians need is more awareness-raising, real information provided in a transparent fashion.

Currently, our physicians across the country are provided information by the pharmaceutical companies. Where does the government stand on protecting the health of Canadians? Do doctors have the time to look after that? We are all aware of the shortage of doctors. They are already rushed. Will they have the time to read up on all these new drugs, each new one being advertised as better than the last? Do they have enough time for that?

The proposed amendments should really include an objective way to provide this kind of information first to our doctors, and then to the general public.

As for the second question, I really have not looked into the matter much. Nonetheless, it is important that Parliament, this House, the elected representatives maintain authority over that aspect. From the moment that we forfeit the responsibility we have been given by the people of Canada, we limit the information the minister will take into consideration. So, it is important that, as elected representatives, we continue to ensure that this responsibility is maintained.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question. I am sure the member has received a number of communications from constituents and from health network organizations. In my experience, from what I have seen and received so far, there seems to be a vibrant skepticism about the bill, both about what it does and about the process.

It will be helpful to the whole process if that skepticism is addressed frontally. In fact, this bill should pass at second reading and go to committee so that we can have public hearings and get the assurances and the explanations for all of the questions people have, because there are some allegations out there about what the bill does or does not do. It is not helpful when people have a misunderstanding.

I wonder if that has been the member's experience. Would she concur that we should ensure there are vibrant committee hearings on the bill to make sure we hear from the experts as well as the representatives of the users of natural health care products?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think debate is always important. Accurate information is as well. I have indicated my concerns about this bill, but it is important to have all the information about it and important that it be debated openly, as I said, with information from independent researchers as well, not necessarily information or advice from large pharmaceutical companies.

I would like to hear from the Canadian Health Coalition and from drug regulatory experts such as Barbara Mintzes and Alan Cassels, whom I cited earlier. Many of these other experts could come before the standing committee. We could hear from them about what the bill would actually do.

I have heard from literally hundreds of constituents, but many of them seem to be fairly well informed about the bill. Some of the information, I have to say, comes from medical doctors who practice holistic medicine and are interested in achieving and ensuring a proper balance between so-called prescription drugs and so-called natural health products, which is not the case at the moment under what is being proposed here.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska has the floor for a brief question.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, particularly since I am the next speaker. I will save some of my time.

I just wanted to put a question to the hon. member. There seems to be a consensus that this bill should move forward to committee, but a lot of questions are raised.

Does the hon. member feel that this bill makes reference to what is happening with advertising on the Internet? We are increasingly swamped with this form of advertising. Then, there is also the advertising found in American magazines that are available here.

We are getting drug advertising through all sorts of media, and I wonder if the bill addresses this issue. If not, then should we not do it in committee?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Victoria has one minute to respond.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

This is an excellent question and one that, in my opinion, should be raised in committee. Indeed, a lot of the advertising that reaches us comes from the United States. There is advertising in magazines, but when it comes to the Internet, it is an altogether different issue. There are already draconian regulations in every area, but even more so in this one. Therefore, it would be worth our while to review this issue, or at least to raise it.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

My hon. colleagues from Laval and Victoria, who spoke earlier, focused on the health aspect and on advertising. Other aspects of this bill also drew my attention. In an effort to keep our viewers at home from losing interest—although the members' presentations were far from boring—I will change the subject somewhat. I will branch off and address the new powers that will be given to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Since I am the agriculture critic for my party, I know it is something that concerns us deeply. People from the Union des producteurs agricoles have also stated their position on the matter.

As we were saying earlier, we in the Bloc Québécois feel it is important that this bill move forward through the legislative process to the committee. This bill raises a number of questions. We have tried to touch on many aspects, but we must ensure that everything is done correctly. That is why we will be very vigilant in committee. I am convinced that my colleague from Laval, as well as my colleague from Québec, who takes care of the health file, will be able to give this bill, if it ever passes, a thorough analysis that will address the concerns of most people.

This bill was introduced at the same time as Bill C-52, which I also spoke to here in this House. We had the opportunity to talk about it earlier this week.

These two bills have to do with health, but they also touch on the agrifood aspect. While Bill C-52 has to do with the safety of consumer products, Bill C-51 could introduce certain measures that I will describe here. During my presentation, I will also explain the traceability system and the recall management system. We are talking about a framework to eliminate damaging effects on health, as well as other areas, but I will focus primarily on those aspects of Bill C-51.

The bill deals with the advertising of drugs, their marketing, approval and traceability. Since we have already had an opportunity to hear about advertising, I will concentrate on traceability, as well as the new powers assigned to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency under the provisions of this bill, which was announced some time ago, at the same time Bill C-52 was announced.

According to a spokesperson for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, that agency could intervene as soon as a potential health risk became known concerning food imported into Canada. The CFIA could obtain a more precise evaluation of the risk from the country concerned. It could also ask that country for additional evidence of inspection, and standards equivalent to those imposed on our own manufacturers or producers, and of course, not more stringent because of international agreements. We cannot require other countries to impose standards that are more severe than those we apply to our own producers or manufacturers for the very simple reason that we would be contravening the laws and regulations of the World Trade Organization.

However, it is very important that people should know that at present there are still no reciprocal standards. We have said that for a long time and I will have more to say in that regard.

Therefore, unfortunately, under the rules, there are still some products or foods that come into Canada, for example, fruit and vegetables that may come from China—we are always talking about that country—or from India, but also from the United States, on which pesticides, insecticides or certain chemical fertilizers that are forbidden in Canada and in Quebec have been used. In fact, those products are allowed in those countries. It is their choice. I do not necessarily dispute that. They have the right to use the pesticides they want.

Nevertheless, one thing certain is that, here in Canada, there is a very large and well-developed awareness of food safety. We want to use fewer of these products, even though, sometimes, we do not really have a choice. However, we must ensure that where fruit and vegetables are treated in other countries with products that are forbidden in Canada, they cannot cross our border and be sold on the shelves of our grocery stores.

I am very anxious to see that in the application of the law. Undoubtedly, we will look at that issue in committee. Bill C-51 should correct a weakness that we have pointed out many times here in the House, in debate or through questions.

Every time that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency comes to speak to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we discuss this. It would be great news if we were able to make these improvements to the inspections.

According to Canadian Food Inspection Agency spokesperson Robert Charlebois—not to be confused with the singer—who was quoted in the April 24 edition of La Terre de chez nous, the Agency will even be able to test products believed to be at risk before they clear customs. That would be a solution to the problem I mentioned earlier. If that were the case, it would be very good.

The Agency currently intervenes when a problem arises, but not before. A number of foods have been recalled from store shelves. When the Agency knows, it does a good job. It issues the recall and the product is removed from the shelves. Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement.

We cannot wait until someone gets sick to take action, although it must be done, since bad things can happen. However, if the Agency had the power, the possibility or the means to intervene before the product even hits the shelves, imagine how many illnesses we could prevent. Cross your fingers. We have not had any deaths, as they have in other countries when a person ingests some of these products, but it happens. We cannot kid ourselves; it happens. There are people in poor health who may ingest foods contaminated with salmonella or what have you, and can die.

It is important to do everything we can to ban these products and ensure that they will not be sold before they hit the shelves, and certainly before they end up on our tables and in our mouths.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the government to intervene if products enter Quebec and Canada that do not meet our health standards. We have been demanding this for a long time and we will continue to do so.

We also denounced this lack of control over food and other imported goods, and we demanded that the government clean up its legislation in order to eliminate shortcomings that subject the health of Canadians to the goodwill of importers. In this regard, I recently read an article in the April 2 edition of the newspaper Le Soleil. It is very short but nonetheless very revealing. It says:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) admits that unsafe food from other countries may be made available to consumers, which is a concern for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The article is referring to the Quebec minister. It continues:

In the past three years, Canada has had to recall dozens of foods that may have been contaminated.

Michel Labrosse, the Agency's national import operations manager, remarks that people have the impression that the government controls everything, but that is not the case. He noted that unlike meat and eggs, which have a good tracing system, vegetables or processed goods may only have a seal of goodwill from importers and their business partners.

Safety is left primarily up to the importers who, according to Mr. Labrosse, act in good faith 98% of the time.

I do not know whether this is a statistic that Mr. Labrosse truly obtained from the department or if that was his approximation. Nonetheless, if 2% of importers are not doing their job, whether intentionally or not—naturally we hope that it is not intentional but the thought of the money may result in goods not suitable for consumption being put on the market—that is 2% too much.

I will continue with the article from Le Soleil:

Marion Nestlé, a professor at the University of New York, believes that there are holes in the food systems of Canada and the United States that may let in bacteria and other harmful substances. Two years ago, three Americans died and almost 200 others became ill after eating spinach contaminated with E. coli.

I was talking about this earlier. You will remember that American spinach was also removed from our grocery stores.

According to Michel Labrosse, perfectly shaped and blemish free products sought after by consumers have a greater risk of having pesticide or herbicide residues.

I believe that consumers increasingly want good quality products. Regarding appearance, if people notice that a product's appearance is perhaps less shiny because no pesticides or herbicides were used, they may well choose that fruit or vegetable that does not look as great as the bright, shiny ones next to it. They will wonder whether the better looking product was sprayed with all sorts of substances. Consumers are increasingly aware of that kind of thing and they make informed decisions concerning their health and that of their families.

In my speech on Bill C-52 this week, I gave examples of such tainted products: cantaloupe, spinach, which was just mentioned, melamine-tainted pork, pear juice, and carrot juice, all in recent months alone. As we can imagine, there have been many recalls over the past few years. That is why I also called for enhanced inspection powers and, more importantly, the hiring of additional inspectors at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

We should make it clear that it is not up to farm producers to pay for the increased inspections and inspection staff. I think that the government's budget can handle the cost of developing an appropriate inspection system. I also pointed out earlier this week that the government had lacked judgment, which prompted a reaction from the Minister of Labour. Perhaps what I meant to say was that the government had been remiss. Considering how long it has been aware of the problem, it should have acted much sooner. I am not going back on what I said, far from it. It is never too late to do the right thing.

All those who were made sick by food they ate that should never have passed inspection here must be telling themselves that they might have been spared the inconvenience had there been more inspections and more inspectors. I think that any parent who has seen his or her child get sick after eating something knows what I am talking about.

So the existing law has to be modernized to reflect new approaches when it comes to safety and traceability. We are told that this is what Bill C-51 does. We intend to send this bill to committee so we can be sure that this will actually be the case. For example, we are told that all importers will have to have a licence. Today, that is only required for importers of meat and fish. The requirement will be expanded to have licences for all food importers, and that is a good thing.

This brings me to the importance of traceability. In Quebec, Agri-Traçabilité Québec was set up in 2001. The mission of Agri-Traçabilité Québec is to contribute to improving food safety and the competitive capacity of Quebec producers. That institution is responsible for developing, implementing and operating a permanent identification system for agricultural product traceability, and covers both animal and plant products. This is what is called the tracking principle, from field to table.

Quebec is well ahead of many countries and also the other provinces, and I am not saying that to pat ourselves on the back. That is what we must be aiming for. It is a good thing that it was developed in Quebec. We are very proud of it, and now it has to serve as an example for the rest of Canada. Whether we like it or not, interprovincial trade means that we are obviously going to be getting food that also comes from the other provinces, and this has to be expanded to other countries as well.

Agricultural producers in Quebec are the first in America to have access to such a highly developed traceability system. It allows for accurate identification of the source of a problem and makes it possible to contain it in order to avoid it becoming endemic or spreading throughout the processing and distribution chain all the way to consumers.

Consumers therefore have greater confidence in our products, in an era when we are affected by irreparable harms, when we think about what happened during the mad cow crisis or the avian flu. We think it does not affect us, but in British Columbia there were poultry destroyed because of a pandemic.

So we are not immune to it. I am also thinking about foot and mouth disease. But I will not list every disease and problem that might arise in cattle, poultry or other livestock. Clearly food safety is a matter of great concern.

Consumers, producers and the entire agri-food industry cannot help but rejoice in the idea that stricter measures and additional resources to enforce them will soon be in place. We will ensure that this happens. And that is what Food & Consumer Products of Canada said in their announcement about Bills C-51 and C-52 in a press release on April 8, from which I will quote a few lines.

The legislation’s focus on risk-based inspection, accountability for importers and strengthening recall provisions for quick intervention when problems arise, would significantly improve Canada’s ability to detect contaminated food and consumer products...Focusing on imported goods from countries or companies with a history of problems just makes sense. Increasing our ability to scrutinize and oversee imports based on risk greatly enhances our ability to detect threats to public health without crippling commerce or violating our trade commitments.

That shows that there are positives to consider in this bill. That is what my colleague from Québec, health critic for the Bloc Québécois, and I conveyed in this House on April 1 when we questioned the government about food inspections. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's failure to monitor imported products is resulting in a lower level of compliance for foodstuffs, thereby threatening food safety for consumers. We demanded food security measures, and we have no intention of letting up simply because this bill has been introduced.

We have already mentioned that the Quebec government and a number of experts have denounced the failure to monitor imported food. This situation not only threatens consumers, but also producers because the imported products do not meet the same standards as local products, as Christian Lacasse, president of UPA, said.

I think that I have gone into enough detail about this issue over the past few minutes for the people to understand how important it is to us that there be reciprocity with respect to standards for pesticides, insecticides and herbicides in the countries with which we trade. It is unacceptable that chemical products banned here, such as pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and some fertilizers, can be used on foods produced in other countries that end up on our grocery store shelves.

I look forward to seeing if Bill C-51 will bring about any real changes to this state of affairs. It is time for the government to demand trade reciprocity. That is why the committee will be especially vigilant in its work to ensure that the necessary resources to enforce the new rules are clearly provided for in the bill.

I see the time, and I get the feeling that I do not have much left, but I want to say that some of the objectives in this bill need to be emphasized, such as avoiding problems by instituting broader targets for potentially unsafe food imports, increasing the government's power to prevent problems by requiring the industry to implement monitoring for unsafe foods, and expressly forbidding the modification of foods. We also want to improve targeted monitoring by increasing the government's power to verify food safety at all points along the supply chain, including before they are imported into Canada.

I have often said that it is important to go to the source to see exactly how foods are grown. We need to know that. We need to do that. If foods are not produced in accordance with our environmental standards, even if it is just a problem with the water used to grow the food, we should simply tell those countries that their products cannot come here.

In conclusion, we also want to support rapid intervention by creating a new power that requires those modifying foods to keep files, by improving access to the information needed to follow up efficiently on problems that arise, and by modernizing and simplifying inspection systems. If we achieve that, it will be a step in the right direction.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member, I would like to ask him a number of questions.

My constituency office has received letters from the natural food products industry. I am wondering if the hon. member's office has also received letters from that industry. What is his party's policy on this issue?

Could he speak to the issue of whether or not advertising by drug manufacturers will be affected by the bill? Will drug manufacturers be able to advertise directly to the public?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his two questions, which do not necessarily deal with the same issue.

My speech dealt primarily with food. As the hon. member may know, I am the Bloc Québécois critic on agriculture and agri-food. However, I will be pleased to answer his question on drug advertising.

As for the first question, unfortunately, I cannot answer it. I would have liked him to ask me the question that was put to him. If he wants to send me the questions that he received from the industry and to which he referred in the context of Bill C-51, I will be pleased to look at them. As for me, I have not yet received any correspondence on this bill and on the concerns that it may raise.

As for advertising, it is clear that it is not something that is prohibited. However, when it comes to drugs, the situation is totally different than with cars or clothes. Even that type of advertising must be regulated. Some things that were tolerated many years ago can no longer be done. The hon. members for Laval and Victoria provided examples of companies that used totally unacceptable forms of advertisement. Under current rules, companies cannot necessarily promote their product the way they would like to, by explaining exactly what it is. So what these companies do is they promote it in a way that is sometimes almost funny. However, the underlying message is very important, and this is where we have to be very careful.

The hon. member for Victoria mentioned the advertisement of a drug to control cholesterol. It shows a person dying of that condition on television. This is like telling people that they must take that drug or die. That is basically the message conveyed.

Some things are unacceptable and cannot be done. We must regulate this, while also allowing merchants to survive.

In conclusion, we can have advertising, but it must be very closely regulated to ensure that it is not disturbing to people, and also that it is not pernicious.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I raised earlier with another member in the House the fact that the changes to the bill regarding advertisements would move it to a regulatory level. The concern I have is that there would be the potential for an order in council which would allow for the PMO or the cabinet to decide what appropriate advertisements would be allowed. My concern, and perhaps the member shares this concern, is that would open the door to lobbyists one more time in a different way. That is a very unfortunate aspect. Perhaps when the bill makes it to committee, that would be one of the areas we could address.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I suggest the member do: make the necessary changes and ask good questions at committee. I am convinced that the members from all the parties represented in this place can do that.

I agree with him. When the minister's discretionary power is too broad, that does open the door to all kind of lobbying, especially from big firms seeking to influence the minister's decision. And pharmaceutical companies are no small potatoes.

Unfortunately for me and for the hon. member, there will always be lobbyists; we just have to learn to live with them. One thing is for sure, though: making the nature of future regulations governing drug advertising very clear in the bill will ensure that the minister will not necessarily be able to do as he pleases when he pleases and, more importantly, he will not have pressure put on him or take orders from lobbies which might be richer or more influential.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

There are two minutes left to the debate. If the hon. parliamentary secretary takes two minutes to put his question, the hon. member will have to wait until debate resumes later to answer.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the excellent work of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I hope that my hon. colleague will work closely with all the parties on this issues.

My question is simple. Will my hon. colleague, who is here in this House, support this excellent bill?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska will be interrupted at 5:40 p.m., but he will have two minutes left to speak later.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I have been shouting myself hoarse, because this is not a subject which makes me excited, but I have just spent 20 minutes stating the views I wanted to convey. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. We want to see it referred to committee. During these 20 minutes, I also mentioned some very interesting elements in the bill, especially about the powers delegated to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. If the member had listened, he would have heard the answer to his question.

Obviously, it will be important for us to refer the bill to a committee. Even if the member sees this bill as excellent, bills are never excellent to start with. They are never perfect. This bill will certainly need to be improved. That is why democracy and Parliament exist. Parties all represent different people. Opinions and comments from the people we represent can be used to improve bills. That is our job. If there were 308 Conservatives in this House, it would be a dictatorship, and bills would not be excellent. Luckily, the opposition exists.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. When we return to the study of bill C-51, there will be two minutes remaining for questions and comments for the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I have had a lot of input from constituents. I want to discuss some of the aspects of the bill and to put on the record some of the input from constituents, mostly to identify concerns that need to be looked at during the detailed analysis of the bill at committee and the testimony of expert witnesses.

The bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act to modernize the regulatory system for foods and therapeutic products, such as contact lenses, breast implants or pharmaceuticals, for example, to improve the surveillance of benefits and risks of therapeutic products through their life cycle, to improve the compliance and enforcement measures by corporations to encourage them to report adverse reactions or potential health threats associated with market products and to give substantial regulatory powers to the minister.

The bill would also create new offences relating to food therapeutic products. It is a new term in the bill, which includes drugs and cosmetics. It would require licences for importing food, in interprovincial trade in food, make amendments to the therapeutic product listing, expand the powers of inspectors, add new administration enforcement measures, including mandatory recalls of therapeutic products and cosmetics, substantially increase the penalties related to offences and provide for the disclosure of confidential business information in certain circumstances.

I have had a lot of input on the bill. I will state some of the concerns at the outset before I go through them in some detail. I do not think anyone in Canada would be against making products safer. Many products have gone as far as to cause the deaths of Canadians. I do not imagine anyone would argue against aspects of the bill that would make products safer for Canadians. A number of elements in the bill are beneficial.

I have reviewed the Debates and have not seen one MP who spoke against the items in the bill, which would make products safer. However, people have many concerns about the bill. These concerns have to be looked at in great detail in committee stage to ensure they are addressed.

One of the biggest concerns is that natural health products would be targeted. At least one company has suggested there would be a huge reduction in health food products or naturopathic cures available to Canadians. Independent analysts at the Library of Parliament and other references have suggested that is not in the wording of the bill, that there is no targeting of natural products. All products would have the same types of controls.

I was quite relieved about that, but nevertheless, I want to find out why there is a problem with the license timing success rates for natural products. Apparently right now there is a backlog of 33,000 to 40,000 products, including food products, natural health products, consumer products and drugs. Many MPs agree that we need to put the resources in to get these approvals done. No matter what products, whether drugs or natural products, if they have proven to be safe for Canadians, why would we have this huge backlog of 30,000 products when they could help to improve the lives of Canadians?

You are doing a great job, Mr. Speaker. You have been in the House for a long time. I know you are retiring soon, so I congratulate you on your excellence work as interim Speaker.

For a particular constituent, I want to ensure the Empowerplus remains available to Canadians. If not, I want to know why. This is very important. She is a professional and suggests in her email, which if I get a chance I will read later, that it keeps her out of the health care system. It keeps her healthy and able to work as a valuable contributor to society.

If some result of this bill would prevent Empowerplus from being available to Canadians, I would certainly want to know why. I would want to investigate that in committee.

There is the relieving of a regulation that could allow big drug companies to advertise directly to consumers. I am a little worried about this. There are all sorts of funds available to do this type of product advertising. I am not sure this is a good step forward. People should be getting recommendations from their doctors or health practitioners, not basing their decisions on whichever company has the most money to advertise.

There are a number of changes in regulations. I mentioned this at the beginning. A number of things in regulating foods, drugs, health food products, natural products, everything covered in this bill are done by regulation. I want to ensure that the committee looks at that in great detail, that the items deferred to regulation are ones that should be done at an administrative level and not come back to Parliament. That is our system.

One of the natural food companies suggested that this bill would allow the bypassing of Parliament in making laws. Obviously that is not true. We can never bypass Parliament, but regulations do not come before Parliament. I would want to ensure there is a reasonable level of administrative items that are allowed to go through under regulations and that they are not at a level of law making but of Parliament. I hope the committee will review that in great detail because a number of people have raised that concern.

As I said earlier, some people suggest there is going to be a massive reduction in products available to them, natural products, health food products, other types of products, because the bill does not target specific types of products but targets everything equally. I want to ensure when the expert witnesses appear before the committee that committee members ask questions and get confirmation that would not be the case, especially in light of the evidence I mentioned earlier about the backlog in analyses of products for licensing. Hopefully, resources will be put forward by the government to make sure that backlog disappears.

One of the benefits of the bill are larger fines. There used to be tiny fines, which for big drug companies were no more than mosquito bites. Drug companies are very professional and do an excellent job, but every once in a while there is a rogue company. We have heard examples of cases where people died. We want to make sure that if this had been done knowingly, a judge would have access to imposing fines and penalties at a level that would be reasonable in those situations.

The government would have the ability to recall unsafe products when discovered. Right now it is up to the companies. Companies by and large have cooperated. It is in their best interests to cooperate, but it should not be left up to them. What if a company becomes insolvent? The government needs the power to recall products. I do not imagine anyone would disagree with that.

It is an offence to give the minister false information about products. I cannot imagine any Canadian objecting to that. Similarly, tampering with products or their labels to make them injurious to people's health would be an offence. I believe everyone would agree that is an improvement.

We do not want people telling consumers something that is not true and tampering with the label to suggest people are getting something they are not. There are provisions regarding false or reckless alarms and prohibiting the importation of food that is injurious to human health. Obviously, Canadians would not want products that were injurious to their health to be imported. Canadians want the controls on imported foods, drugs and other types of products that are dangerous to be as strong as the controls on locally produced foods, drugs or other types of products that are dangerous.

I am curious about why the regulations relating to crossing provincial borders are in the bill, considering the efforts to which the federal government has gone to leave interprovincial matters to the provinces and not create interprovincial border problems. I wonder why that is in the bill.

Bill C-51 would require hospitals and health care institutions to report adverse reactions. I cannot imagine anyone objecting to that. Canadians certainly want to know if some drug or other product is causing adverse reactions. If that provision was not in the bill, an institution might report the adverse reactions and no one would take notice of it. When there is mandatory reporting and officials see the same problem occurring in several places in Canada, they would know it is something that has to be looked into.

The legislation also allows for life cycle testing and monitoring of a product. Sometimes new products come out, are tested and approved and then their use is changed. People use them in different ways or as a remedy for something else. There is no testing down the road. Bill C-51 would allow testing and life cycle monitoring of a product to ensure that it and its uses continued to be safe for Canadians down the road.

During the debate previously on this bill, some members mentioned products that had been a problem in the past and why Canada needs such a bill. I am quoting from Hansard the names of drugs that were mentioned by other MPs. Heparin was mentioned. There was mention of a contaminated drug from China, Vioxx, which led to many deaths. Evra is a birth control drug which leads to clotting. Singulair is an asthma drug which causes suicidal ideation. Champix is an anti-smoking drug which causes suicidal ideation and depression. There are also some anti-psychotic drugs for children that apparently cause obesity. People are worried about the vast majority of drugs and products coming on the market.

The Minister of Health said when he introduced the bill that he issued warnings practically every week about this or that dangerous product, some of which are natural products which have an impact on cardiac arrest, strokes or liver damage. If drugs or whatever products happen to cause those problems and the minister is giving a lot of warnings, obviously Canadians want that type of danger to their health dealt with.

The minister also said that he wants to ensure that natural health products are available to Canadians. Indeed, the government wants more natural health products in the marketplace in order to provide more choice. It is good if that is true, but the minister has not necessarily convinced Canadians yet. From the many concerns that I have heard about, a number of people have not been convinced.

I want to go through some of the emails that I have received regarding concerns that have to be dealt with at second reading before the bill can proceed. The first email is very cogent to my riding:

My limited understanding to this Act may impose restrictions on the collection, preservation and use of, in our case, traditional medicines etc. I don't think anyone is sure at this point the impact on First Nations, Self-Governing or otherwise. What I do know is that there has to be meaningful consultation if legislation is developed that could potentially diminish or impact on our rights under our Self-Government and Final Agreements.

As you know, First Nations gather, preserve and use all kinds of traditional medicines and this activity is protected under our agreements.

Others including our Health & Social Director are also raising this as an issue, and it is certainly has potential to impact on our culture and lifestyle.

As a citizen of the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, this concerns me greatly--

As she says, it is mandatory by law to have consultation. Certainly, I hope that such first nation witnesses are called and that there is an analysis and consultation to the effects on their products that they have used since time immemorial.

Someone named Carole states:

I am opposed to the Police State Powers in Bill C-51. I want my access to natural health products protected and there is something wrong with the State making Personal and health decisions...health decisions are fundamental to our personal Autonomy...

There has been more than one comment on the types of powers in the bill. The committee definitely has to review those to ensure they are not out of line with the standard types of enforcement. In particular, search and seizure powers have been raised by a number of people, and that certainly has to be cleared up by the committee.

A person by the name of Shawn states:

--I do not support bill C-51...I prefer to have access to natural products “free and clear”.

The next one is from Elizabeth. I will pass that one for now because this is the one I was talking about where the person has bipolar disorder and definitely needs this particular drug I was talking about, Empowerplus, a vitamin supplement, to keep her healthy and she does not want to be denied this important medicine.

The next one is from a person who distributes these types of natural products. It states:

Many Canadians rely upon natural health products for their health. These products are endangered and consumers need to act now to save them.

Since 2004, when the Natural Health Product Regulations were introduced, natural health products have been increasingly threatened. The new Regulations were Health Canada's response to consumer demands for the government to protect their access to natural health products. The Regulations have had the opposite effect. To “legally” sell a health product, the new Regulations impose a licensing requirement. The problem is that 60% of licence applications have failed. These have been the “easy” applications. Expectations are that 70-75% of applications will fail. For the [natural health product] Community this means 75% of [natural health products] we rely upon for our health will become illegal.

I certainly think this person has experience in the field. I certainly think those answers have to be given by the committee as to what is purported that this bill would do and the results on the ground, not only of this bill but the regulations of 2004 and the effects they are having.

I also have all sorts of concerns from a chap named Werner. I will not go into them now because they are so long. Also, as he is not one of my constituents, I am sure his MP will bring them up. However, he has a lot of concerns about, first, the minister's past history related to the drug companies. He has a whole bunch of detailed information that I am sure he sent to many MPs and they can bring out those concerns related to the bill.

Another one from my riding, though, is from Bryan. He states:

I'm afraid [this] will eliminate our choices. I find [the] assurances to the contrary empty promises. They say the bill doesn't target natural products, practitioners and consumers, but there is nothing in the wording of the bill that says that. Big Pharma can afford to do the testing, pay fines and market their products. This bill will help them consolidate control of the market by eliminating what little competition they have now - alternative medicines and suppliers.

He, too, talks about individuals who need to deal with diabetes, arthritis and bipolar depression with diet and supplements. We want to make sure that we do not lose those.

I have another practitioner of herbal medicine, named Andrew, who thinks that a huge number of the products, 75%, will be eliminated. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go over all of these because I can see my time is up, yet I wanted to present many more.

I commend people to read a Globe and Mail article of May 23, 2008, that goes into this in more detail. I urge the committee to deal with a number of the questions raised by my constituents, the final one being the fact that the inspectors who have the ability to do these inspections and recalls will hopefully not be forced to do a lot of them.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order. It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Thornhill.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of my Thornhill constituents have also raised concerns with me about the impact that Bill C-51 will potentially have on natural health products. Among other concerns, Thornhill residents have suggested that Bill C-51 will place unfair regulations on vitamins, limit their access to natural health products, restrict their ability to grow herbs, and will potentially hurt small business owners.

I would like to ask my colleague to elaborate a bit more on the impact that Bill C-51 will have on natural health products and what response he would like to give to these concerns raised by residents of Thornhill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have had a number of similar concerns raised. There is a campaign by a particular company that has had products with wide distribution. I had those concerns too, and that is why I wanted more analysis done on the bill as well as feedback from people who know more than I about these particular regulations and drugs.

As I said, any independent analysis that I found of the bill suggests, first of all, that there is no targeting of any type of product. All products are covered equally in the bill. Whether it is a drug, natural health product or a cosmetic, it has to be safe, so there is definitely nothing being targeted.

However, one of my concerns, as I mentioned in my speech, is if these things are going to be licensed and there is no problem as long as they are safe, why are there 30,000 products of all types in the backlog? I think people will be worried if their products are in a backlog and not approved because then obviously they will not be available.

I want to read from the Globe and Mail article of May 23 that I mentioned. It has looked into this as well. It states:

But in reality, medical experts say the changes probably won't have a major impact on the way natural health products are marketed and sold in Canada. In fact, they may finally bring accountability to a largely unregulated industry that has typically been able to market products with little proof of their effectiveness and limited safety guarantees, according to Lloyd Oppel, a physician responsible for health promotion at the British Columbia Medical Association.

Many companies selling herbs and vitamins fear the changes could force them to provide the same level of safety and quality evidence as pharmaceutical companies - requirements that are excessive considering the high level of safety of natural health products, said Penelope Marrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Health Food Association--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Question and comments, the hon. member for Trinity--Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member read many articles and letters, but will the Liberal Party and this member stand up and say no to this bill as it is drafted now?

Really, it is a power grab for the health minister to have an inordinate amount of discretion on the whole natural health products industry. Lumping natural health products with drugs causes all sorts of problems. Yes, there is a huge backlog of licensing but that is partially because of the way past regulations have been implemented by both the previous Liberal government and now the Conservative government.

Many of the amendments that may be necessary and that the member read into the record, if this bill were to pass the way it is at second reading, and if it gets to committee, I am afraid they will be ruled out of order by the health committee chair.

By that time it might be too late, even though I understand that there will be concerns from all across the country. Therefore, will the member vote against this bill now or at lease not say yes now and not send it to committee, or if it is sent to committee send it without a recommendation?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had noticed, members from all parties are very supportive of a number of items in the bill that makes products safer for Canadians.

Not a single member of the House of Commons had a problem with many of the things I listed. They want to improve the safety of products for Canadians. They do not want, for instance, big drug companies being able to put things on the market that are dangerous without there being sufficient controls.

I also said in my speech that I wanted to ensure that a number of concerns I raised that people have put forward, whether they are real or perceived, are dealt with at second reading.

The member suggested a power grab. That is why I said in my speech that the regulations have to be reasonable at an administrative level. Things that Canadians should be able to change by law are at the legislative level. The committee has to look at that.

The committee has to look at the type of enforcement to make sure it is similar, that it is not an abrogation of our rights that we normally expect to have as Canadians, as well as other types of enforcement regimes.

The purpose of the committee review, and members of all parties have talked about the things to be looked at in committee, is to bring these types of concerns forward. Fortunately, the experts on these items will come before the committee as witnesses. The natural health food people have to be there.

I raised the point that I do not think anyone raised in the previous debate about first nations. People with products should be witnesses at that committee to make sure that the legally required consultation is done, so that Canadians can be made safer with the good parts of the bill, but that the concerns are also dealt with before the bill proceeds any further.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member on his speech because it does reflect much of the correspondence I have been receiving on it and on which people have been approaching me.

There seems to be a concern about natural health products and the hon. member has outlined that concern quite well.

Indeed, my family has been a beneficiary of natural health products where pharmaceutical products have failed. I have a great deal of personal sympathy with the concerns that are raised in correspondence.

However, there does seem to be a discrepancy sometimes between the claims of natural health products and what the empirical evidence might be.

It seems to me that the approach that has been taken by our party is, in fact, the proper approach, which is to at least let the evidence come out in committee and hear what the experts have to say, particularly on the issue of potential discrepancies between the claim of a natural health product and any evidential, as opposed to anecdotal, evidence.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments as to whether he feels that the committee can perform a useful service to the people of Canada in allowing that evidence to come forward, so that Canadians have some assurance that what they see on the label is in fact the product that they will not only receive but that the product will do what it says it will do.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely agree with the member. I want to make sure my position is clear. I agree with him that it helps natural products.

I am a big supporter of alternative medicines. I hope there will be more of them and that they will be approved. However, I agree with the hon. member. There has to be a system where they are approved safe for Canadians.

There are examples, and I do not have them in my notes, of certain natural products, and I remember one related to iodine, that had properties that were not listed on the label or in amounts that were unsafe to Canadians. These have already been analysed and discovered. I am sure these are few and far between, as are problems with drugs. However, if it could be injurious to the health of Canadians, we have to ensure that what is on the label is in the package, and it has the proven effects and that the company is not making false claims.

I hope the committee will be able to do that type of work. Fortunately, we have a majority of opposition members at committee that could certainly lead to the right witnesses being called.

I am not on that particular committee, but in other committees of which I am a member, my experience has been that when good knowledge and input came forward, the government was not very forthwith in allowing amendments to improve bills at committee. I hope this will not be--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Cambridge.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today and speak at second reading of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This is an important bill with an important goal.

Many members in the House know, and most people in my riding of Cambridge know, that I was a chiropractor for 20 years. I prescribed natural health products to improve the health of my patients, to limit the time of their disablement or their disease, if I may call it that, or at least to ease some of their symptoms. I have not only prescribed these products or recommended many of them to my patients over many years, and still do to this day, but I have also recommended them to my children, my wife, my in-laws, and my mother. I take them myself.

I congratulate the Minister of Health and the government, whose goal, in the introduction of this bill to the House, is simply to better protect Canadians, to keep them safe, and to modernize the safety system within the existing act.

As a result of my background and my passion for these products, I would like to limit my comments today to the natural health products aspect of this bill.

In 2005, a Health Canada survey showed that 71% of Canadians regularly took vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic treatments, and naturopathic treatments. In fact, we have known for decades that a vast percentage of the Canadian population use non-traditional forms of medicine, whether they are chiropractors, naturopaths, homeopaths, or reflexologists, all of these being outside the traditional allopathic course of action. In fact, if we were to lump it all together, there would be a compelling argument that more people actually see non-medical doctors than medical doctors.

These products can decrease the cost to the public purse significantly. In saying that, it is the government's intention to keep access to these products open. There will be no changes in accessing these products by Canadians than there was a few years ago. Nothing technically is going to change. I am appreciative of the opportunity to explain more clearly exactly what is going to happen with respect to natural health products as a result of this legislation.

As a member whose past history is that of a chiropractor, I want to support the demand that Canadians have for a broader choice but for safe and effective natural health products. It is important that natural health products be regulated to protect Canadians, and no one argues that. There are clear examples where tainted products have been found not just among natural health products but even among prescription medication.

Sometimes it happens that products have something in them that makes them unsafe. Everyone will remember the Tylenol incident of a decade ago where some of those products had to be removed from the market very quickly because they had been tampered with.

The other issue is that Canadians deserve to know what is in the bottle. They deserve to be protected from poor quality production or from malicious tampering with a product. Canadians need to know that if they are buying vitamin C that they are actually getting vitamin C. This makes simple sense and there are many examples.

One example that the House is fully aware of is a product called black cohosh, which was found to contain a species of the plant different from what was stated on the label. Some people, of course, think that natural health products are very safe and of low impact, and generally speaking they are, but the fact is that in this particular product the presence of this other plant actually caused liver toxicity. It was a major health problem for the people who were taking it.

These people were innocent. They read the label. They took their advice from their chiropractor, their medical practitioner or their naturopath. They went to the natural health store and purchased the product, but it was not the product that they were led to believe.

As well, we have had instances where folks come along and make unfounded claims. They actually might stand up and say that if we take this product, this pond algae from some obscure place around the world, making it sound attractive and exotic, it will cure cancer. There have been examples of such claims being made in regard to a cure for SARS.

Not only is this misleading to the public, but let me explain the danger in doing something like that. We do know that there are proven aids for these types of conditions. There are treatments available to Canadians that will help certain conditions, such as terminal cancer, for example, treatments to extend the life of the patient or make the patient feel more comfortable.

Of course, a patient with one form of cancer also can have other conditions, not just the single terminal cancer. A lot of patients with these types of diseases have other problems. Those other problems need to be treated as well, but when someone comes along and says that all a patient needs to do to cure his or her cancer is take a particular product, that patient sometimes delays appropriate care. Through delaying appropriate care, the condition worsens.

In some cases, not cancer cases in particular, but SARS, as was the case in Toronto, there were claims by some manufacturers or suppliers of certain products that if people took their product it would cure SARS. That kind of claim is extremely dangerous, because it prevents Canadians from getting appropriate care and, in some cases, can lead to the death of the patient. It often leads to a delay in proper care, making the disease itself more chronic, more difficult to treat and significantly more dangerous for the patient.

Despite our good intentions as a government to come along and revamp a very old, outdated regulatory system, despite our good intentions as a government to have the simple intention of making these products safer for Canadians but still keep alive access for Canadians to health practitioners, complementary treatment professionals and manufacturers, despite those good intentions, as my friend opposite mentioned, there has been a campaign on the Internet and elsewhere that has led to a lot of misinformation and a lot of concerns for Canadians. Unfounded as all of this may be, it is out there and I believe we need to address it.

I, too, have received these types of emails. Not only am I the member of Parliament for Cambridge-North Dumfries, but I was a chiropractor for 20 years, so a lot of my old patients have been writing to me. They have expressed some of these concerns.

For example, they are concerned that the way natural health products will be regulated will change and they will lose access to these products. That is absolutely not true.

There is a concern that natural health products will need a prescription. Again, that is not true.

We use the word prescription probably a bit too loosely when we speak of things. I myself say that I prescribe these products for patients, but not in the way that one needs a prescription, where one goes to a medical doctor, costing the provincial health care system some $35 to $50 and gets a prescription written out, which means then going to a pharmacist and paying another $9, $10 or $12 dispensing fee.

None of that is true. It is another myth that for some reason is being propagated on the Internet. I want to assure Canadians that it is not true.

As well, there is a false belief that inspectors would be able to enter private homes without permission or a warrant. No one in this House would ever allow such a thing to happen. That is absolutely not true. In fact, as with any law in Canada, no one can enter a private home without a warrant, which would require a judge to review the case. The case would have to be extremely compelling.

I will mention a little later on in my speech that there are times when private property has to be walked upon to get to a manufacturing facility, but these are rare cases and I am here to say that this belief is absolutely not true.

I want to make this clear to members of the House, particularly my friends in the NDP, who seem to prefer to send out misinformation. I heard one of the hon. members this morning again using phrases like lumping NHPs, natural health products, together with foods and drugs. As for the phrase “lumping together”, that member either has not done her research at all or is actually trying scare Canadians on purpose into somehow supporting her misguided approach to this bill.

I am sure the member knows that this is a very complex piece of proposed legislation. It has been around for years. It has been modified somewhat. Perhaps the member has not read the new legislation that we have introduced and is relying, much like the misinformation campaign on the Internet, on outdated information.

It is very important that we not use these tactics to create fear in Canadians. What is important in this place of honour is that we try our hardest to find the absolute truth with respect to every piece of legislation. The bottom line is that we need to alleviate Canadians' concerns, not make them fearful by misinformation on those kinds of things.

I want to step back for a second on the issue of Health Canada officials. In fact, the minister has met with Health Canada officials, who have had multiple stakeholder meetings over the last month or more to explain Bill C-51 and hear suggestions for change.

I should mention that I myself have received hundreds of emails, as many members have, but I have also sent out hundreds of letters and have made phone calls to many of the natural health product stores in my riding. I have sent letters to every single chiropractor, naturopath, dietician, herbalist, medical doctor, and physiotherapist, I believe, all of whom would have access to patients who may wish to have advice on products.

I congratulate all of the folks in my riding who have written back. It is indeed an honour to have a constructive, bilateral conversation with constituents and hear their concerns, but that is only the first half of it. There is then the ability to bring those concerns to Ottawa, to this place, and sit down with the Minister of Health and his team. I have to tell members that I have done so on no less than six occasions.

It has been an absolute honour to be able to bring forth the concerns from my riding of Cambridge and North Dumfries and have the minister listen to those concerns, knowing full well that the minister and his team have listened to the concerns of all members in the House who, in totality, have heard the concerns of the manufacturers, the people who use these products, Canadians, and professionals abroad.

On behalf of the Minister of Health and in response to this government's concern for the opinions of Canadians and manufacturers, I believe we should in fact refer Bill C-51 to committee. It is the government's intention as a result of all of these consultations to introduce amendments for the committee's consideration.

If I may, I would like to share some of the results of those conversations, some of the end points, so to speak, of a minister who has listened to stakeholders and has discussed with a number of members of the House some of the proposed amendments that we would make to Bill C-51.

First, we fully accept and agree with what we have heard from natural health products stakeholders. This very important amendment is to create legislatively a third category for natural health products. I want to say that existing now is a sort of regulatory third category, but the government wants to make it a legislative third category. This is a very important step in protecting natural health products from ever being lumped into foods or drugs, neither of which they are.

I think that takes into consideration all of the fears that Canadians have expressed, because it will protect natural health products. It will be impossible to silently change the way health products will be treated when they are in a third and separate category.

We understand that natural health products should be recognized in legislation as different from drugs. We recognize that they are unique within an overall umbrella of therapeutic products.

To do this, we propose to bring into Bill C-51 a definition of natural health products which is actually consistent with the current definition under the regulatory regime that now exists and has existed since 2004. The reason we want to do that is reasonably simple: we feel it would be appropriate given that this definition has already been subjected to extensive consultation.

Bill C-51 will thus support the existing NHP regulations, which reflect the unique nature of NHPs and recognize that these are generally lower risk products. In regard to this separate and legislated third category, this amendment would also make clear that regulations relating to drugs would not apply to natural health products.

We have also heard great concern that in defining NHPs care should be taken to avoid lumping them, as I am sure NDP members will continue to say, into the regulatory standards for foods. Foods are outlined in Codex Alimentarius.

We agree with that. Therefore, it is the government's view that our proposed approach to defining NHPs separate from drugs, but within an overall umbrella of therapeutic products, will prevent the application of Codex to NHPs.

Second, we have listened to many people and professionals who say the same level of scientific evidence that Health Canada requires for drugs should not apply to NHPs. This is a very good amendment by the government. It is our intention to propose an amendment which would make it clear that the type and amount of information required for NHPs shall include traditional knowledge, knowledge of first nations, knowledge of the 5,000 year history of the Chinese on their types of medicine, and history of use, with history of use being safe use, or as has been used for decades by chiropractors, naturopaths and so on.

In addition, given the wide range of therapeutic products, we proposed an amendment which would make it clear that the type and amount of information required to obtain a licence depends on the nature of the product and its intended use. In other words, a new product may require more information. Or if a product claims to cure cancer, versus the common cold, then certain things would be different. We will underline this in the preamble of the bill: that the use of history and traditional knowledge are valuable and important sources of information.

Third, we want to talk about compliance and enforcement provisions. The government's intention is that the powers of Health Canada should be exercised in a very reasonable way and only for good purpose. Amendments to the bill and as suggested at committee will be that an inspector must carry out his or her duties in a reasonable fashion, having regard to risk of injury. As well, if any product is seized, it has to be dealt with in a timely manner so as not to impact small businesses.

I see my time is up. Perhaps I will have the opportunity during questions and answer to get a couple of these other points out.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the government on the proposed amendments, particularly adding traditional knowledge, which is a very important amendment, and I appreciate that.

I have a question on one particular amendment. Perhaps the member could outline this further for people who might not understand the complexities of the categorization of these natural products. Although he did a very good job in his speech, could he go over the regulatory regime where in 2004 they were categorized?

If I understand it, the government has agreed to an amendment that would solve the concern and the legislative environment. Right now every product, whether it is a drug or a food, would be subject to a lot of the conditions in the bill. Now there will be an additional amendment to will deal with a lot of the concerns we have had expressed to us. This will identify natural products in the legislative framework as something different.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member's question in two different ways.

First, the government will propose to committee that we send another amendment, which I did not get to, and that is to set up a separate advisory committee. That committee would be an external advisory committee made up of stakeholders, manufacturers, health care professionals, the public, consumers who would have input on any changes that need to be made with respect to upcoming natural health products.

As the member will probably know, and this is the second part of how we intend to do that, under a regulatory regime, the minister and future governments would have an easier time of making changes to how natural health products would be impacted.

As we have seen over the last six or eight years, this issue has come and gone many times. The misinformation we read on the Internet is largely in part some of the past experiences we have had. By creating a separate legislated category, that will become significantly harder to do.

What we have seen in the past is folks have argued that natural health products should be food. We understand there is a regulatory regime with respect to Codex, which is very complicated. As a government, we are getting a little fed up with some of the safety factors with respect to food.

We really do not want to put natural health products there. We certainly do not want to suggest that natural health products are drugs and have them fall under the regulatory regime of the pharmaceutical industry, which would require a huge amount of investigative research before getting to the market. These are generally safe products, so we did not want that.

There seems to have been a workable regulatory category for natural health products. The government would like to propose an amendment that it is a legislated category. I do not think we will change the name, and I would not propose we do that. However, instead of the food drugs act, it would be food, drugs, natural health products act. It simply recognizes them as a separate product, which makes them safe and makes the issues permanent for Canadians. Canadians will have the same access to these products as they have had over the years past and now on into the future.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the member had to say. I counted at least seven amendments, if not more, that would change the bill, whether it is the legislative or third category, definition of health product, traditional use, the recognition of, separate advisory committee, compliance, et cetera. The health critic for the NDP had a lot of concerns right from day one. It as if the way the bill is drafted now is not acceptable.

I hear many concerns. Rather than passing the bill as it is at second reading, why would the House not send it to the committee without recommendation and then have those amendments put in at the health committee after some hearings? If we say yes to Bill C-51 the way it is structured now, how can anyone blame the natural health product industry, or the herbal medicine practitioners and all those folks who are extremely fearful because of the way it is structured and written? There is a lot of fear out there and I do not blame them because of the history.

The hon. member also said that he understood because of the past history of this industry being attacked. There is a lot of misunderstanding out there. Would it not be a much better approach for the House to not say yes to the bill as it is drafted? The government is already proposing all these amendments? If we approve the bill as it is at second reading, then during the summer how will anyone understand and know for sure these amendments will be accepted at the health committee?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the way the process in the House of Commons works is a bill is presented at first reading and at second reading the House gets to debate it. We get to stand in the House and express our concerns about the bill, or the concerns we have heard from our constituents through emails or phone calls. The minister, as I mentioned, has met with a number of stakeholders and has done an incredible amount of work listening to folks.

What happens now, for the member's information, is the bill gets voted on at second reading and heads to committee where all these changes happen. Committee then brings the bill back amended for third reading. I think the member has probably confused second reading with third reading. This is exactly what we do at second reading. We have the debate at second reading in the House. All members then get to put their proposed changes or their ideas forward. Then it goes to a smaller committee, not a committee like this with 308 members, of 12 members who have the time and budget to bring in stakeholders, witnesses, manufacturers and consumers. They add information.

The committee then sits down after that and members debate all the information they have gathered. They write a report and make recommendations. They vote on the actual wording of the amendments, so they dot the i's and cross the t's. Then the bill comes back fully changed and the House gets a third shot at third reading to vote it down.

To vote it down now would put Canadians at risk. The way it is now is not good. That is why we are changing it. I encourage my friends from the NDP to stop the misinformation because this is important for Canadians. This is becoming an extremely good legislation. If these amendments are picked up at committee and if other amendments proposed at committee are looked with the due diligence that committees tend to do, then that is exactly how Parliament should work for Canadians.

I ask all members of the House, including the NDP, to vote the bill through at this stage and the committee will do its job.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague that, in general, the bill is interesting. It also addresses important demands made by the Bloc Québécois. However, we would like to ensure that, during committee work and study of the amendments, careful and close attention is paid to the entire issue of natural products.

This bill proposes changes to how things are done. Those involved in these sectors, which have grown significantly in recent years, are afraid that a framework will be imposed that is similar to the one governing medications, for example. In that regard, we must ensure that there is appropriate oversight but that it is not so heavy-handed as to paralyze this field.

Can the hon. member provide assurances that this is the government's intent?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been here for my speech, he would have heard that this was exactly the government's intention with these proposed amendments. We intend to show the value of natural health products in the preamble of the legislation. We intend to define natural health products under a legislated definition and a legislated third category.

We will restrain the power of inspectors. We want to constrain their ability to do search and seizures. There will have to be warrants. None of this misinformation is true. We will use the history of the product, be it traditional history based on, for example, first nations or Chinese medicine and traditional knowledge of doctors. We will be doing all of that as well as protecting personal information and creating an advisory committee for the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-51 today. This is an issue that deals with something of top concern to people across the country and certainly people in Vancouver Quadra, and that is the issue of health care. More importantly, health prevention and maintaining health is a critical part of what we do as people, families and mothers.

This bill speaks about not just protecting health from adverse issues through products that might be dangerous but also touches on how we can maintain our health and prevent health challenges by using natural products and complementary medicines, and using the medical system in a proactive and preventive way.

It is a very important bill which I am pleased to speak to. It touches on the protection of consumers from products that are tampered with or contaminated. It talks about protecting consumers. The products that they think they are buying and consuming need to be such products. There needs to be the ability to recall products that are problems and an important update to this legislation that is very out of date. From those perspectives, this is an important bill.

I will touch briefly on my background using complementary medicine. I, in fact, applied to become a naturopathic physician. Way back in my early career choices, I applied to the John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine in Seattle having completed all of the prerequisite requirements to enter a college of naturopathic physicians. Since then, I have become a mother of three children and raised those children using almost exclusively complementary medicine.

Of course, the medicine provided by our MDs and hospitals has a very important role to play. When my daughter broke her leg, I was very grateful that there was an emergency department. I was able to take her in and she was given great care. She has healed properly and is able to climb mountains and plant trees without a problem.

The allopathic medical system also has an important place in our lives. However, so does complementary medicine. Using naturopathic physicians as primary physicians has been my family's choice. Using homeopathic remedies, traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, and a variety of alternatives has been an important part of maintaining the health of my family members.

From that perspective, I have been very concerned about possibly infringing on the choice that people might make to use naturopathic, complementary and other alternative modalities, and the products that they use, many of which have been used in traditional medicines for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and are important to maintaining health, preventing problems, and managing chronic diseases.

An additional aspect about the complementary medical system is that it tends to be supportive of people taking self-responsibility for their health, changing some of the lifestyle aspects that may not be conducive to their health, stepping forward to take responsibility in preventing problems by eating well, and using nutritional and herbal supports before there are clinical problems.

That self-responsibility is increasingly important in our society. As demographics change, the allopathic medical system is over-burdened with the demand on it and the costs are escalating, and taking larger and larger percentages of provincial budgets.

I have been listening to the concerns of people in my community of Vancouver Quadra from the perspective of the fines and enforcement measures in the proposed bill. I appreciate the member for Cambridge mentioning some of the amendments that the government was considering. I have also been listening to people from the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors, both in British Columbia and nationally.

While I recognize that there are real concerns with this bill, notwithstanding Health Canada's attempts to reassure people that it would essentially change very little with respect to natural products, I want to flag some other concerns.

One of the concerns, of course, has to do with the intent to lump natural products in with therapeutic drugs. An article in The Vancouver Sun points out how completely unacceptable that would be. The article reports on a study which took place at the Vancouver General Hospital. It essentially concluded that 12% of patients who were rushed to the emergency room were there because of adverse affects from medications. The study findings were published that day in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The 11 international authors of the study said patients with medication related complaints were more likely to be admitted to hospital beds after they had been seen in the emergency room and occupied those beds far longer than others, a result the authors described as striking. The study estimated that 70% of such visits were preventable through better prescribing, dispensing, and monitoring of patients.

I would like to quote from lead investigator Dr. Peter Zed, who was working at Vancouver General Hospital during the study but is now at the Queen Elizabeth Health Sciences Centre in Halifax:

We've proven in this study that we've got a problem in the health care system with patients who experience bad effects from medications and we have to figure out how to reduce those problems.

Problems stem from a variety of issues, including patients being prescribed the wrong drugs, given wrong dosages, having allergic interactions with drugs, and patients not following instructions for how and when to take their medications.

The key that one can take away is the fact that essentially one in nine emergency room visits at Vancouver General Hospital relate to pharmaceutical medications. This is a very different category of product than natural products such as herbs and traditional Chinese medicines.

Some adverse affects have been put forward by Health Canada. Members across the aisle have suggested that natural products and herbal medicines also can have adverse affects. I am not going to argue that there may be cases where a product is not 100% what it is claimed to be in the container or that there may be a contraindication with other medications people might be taking.

However, one in nine emergency room visits are due to pharmaceutical drugs versus the record of natural products, herbal medications, homeopathics, organotherapy, and other kinds of products that would be lumped in with pharmaceutical drugs in the bill as it reads now.

I am pleased to hear that amendments to create a third category are being considered, given that until very recently Health Canada was denying that there would be negative impacts from the way the bill was structured. I am going to be very vigilant in following the debate as this goes forward.

I have a letter from a constituent. Brian says:

I am writing to you as one of your constituents to express my concerns about Bill C-51 and the impact it will have on the ability of my naturopathic doctor to treat my health concerns safely and effectively as well as my access to natural health products that I currently purchase. As an informed patient, I have chosen to be treated by a naturopathic physician utilizing natural therapies and substances to ensure optimal health. I would like some assurances that my choice to see a naturopathic doctor or purchase natural health products in the store will not be negatively affected by Bill C-51.

I am focused on the response of the naturopathic physician community because that is where my knowledge is strongest and those concerns remain.

I have a public posting from a naturopathic physician in Nelson, B.C., who is the current president of the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia, Dr. Lorne Swetlikoff. He acknowledges that:

--Bill C-51 appears well intended and seems to strengthen the manner in which all health products will be regulated. [However] as you delve into the details of the bill you discover the potential for disaster [that] it poses for the practice of naturopathic medicine in Canada.

A couple of the examples of the concern that is being raised by the naturopathic community is that:

The bill introduces a new term called “prescription therapeutic products” to refer to any product, including a natural product that is not included under the current natural health product regulations and states that they will be accessible only by a “practitioner”.

However, of great concern to Dr. Swetlikoff and other naturopathic physicians is that:

--under this bill, prescription therapeutic products require a prescription from a “practitioner”. Currently naturopathic doctors do not have prescribing authority and are not designated as a practitioner in Canada [under our federal laws].

So, essentially, that would mean that there would be many products that naturopathic physicians utilize to maintain the health, to protect and prevent problems, of their clients, and to manage chronic diseases, that would no longer be accessible to them. Of course, they could be prescribed by an MD, but medical doctors are actually not trained to utilize those kinds of herbal and non-pharmaceutical drug products. So, they could become inaccessible.

I think it is critical to understand that this does affect many patients because many people use the services of naturopathic physicians. They are physicians who have been trained seven-plus years in post-secondary institutions and to now say that a naturopathic physician can no longer prescribe a patient to use a herb like St. John's wort is completely outrageous. That area needs to be addressed as the bill moves forward.

I had the privilege of having worked with the provincial government when I was in cabinet between 2001 and 2005 to raise the profile of complementary medical modalities and the effectiveness of those modalities on prevention and chronic disease management, and the need of additional professionals to take care of patients who in my province of British Columbia have a shortage of family doctors available. So, it is very important to integrate complementary and alternative medicine into our health care system and not to isolate it and marginalize it.

So, in British Columbia I worked with the government and the naturopathic association to ensure that we in British in Columbia have a broader scope of practice for naturopathic physicians that better reflects the kinds of services that they are trained to provide. I am pleased that recently a law was passed that supports a scope of practice that will allow those physicians to prescribe, to have hospital privileges, to refer to specialists, and to request laboratory procedures for their patients.

That is a step toward integrating naturopathic and other alternative medical practitioners into our health care system, which is exactly what we need so that people can have choice, so they are not isolated, so that there is not a duplication where a patient needs to see a naturopathic physician and then has a whole different track to see an MD because of the historic separation between those practices.

Integrating them is very important. I have been pleased and privileged to be able to work toward that in British Columbia, but it is not the case in all provinces. In provinces where a naturopathic physician cannot prescribe, Bill C-51 would unfortunately and very negatively curtail the ability of naturopathic physicians and other complementary physicians to provide proper care, service and support to their patients.

I was also pleased to hear about the proposed amendments. The member for Cambridge described some of them.

We need to ensure as the bill moves forward that there is proper consultation, and not just consultation but incorporation of the views and the requirements of the different stakeholders that have an interest in this. I would contend that this has not happened adequately or we would not have had this great amount of concern and fear on the part of the public, a fear that to some degree I have shared.

I have been working with naturopathic physicians, as I have said, but also with people who represent the manufacturers, the importers, the distributors, the wholesalers and retailers of these health products, to make sure we understand which of these concerns are valid. Substantially, these concerns are valid. We should move forward in a way that fully addresses them, that does not just window dress this by hearing them and then moving forward with a bill that overregulates a sector whose products have demonstrated very little harm.

I will repeat what I said in my introductory remarks, which is that consumer safety is an important role of government. That is part of what we do. We regulate and legislate to protect consumers from demonstrated harms, but as a society we have to always balance between that kind of protection and an overregulation which would cast a net so broadly that it would bring in products and issues that really have not been demonstrated to be harmful to the people who choose to use them.

I would say that is what Bill C-51 does. By casting such a wide net, it actually risks doing more harm than it prevents, by frustrating people who are taking responsibility for their health, and by applying huge fines, which might be appropriate in the case of a billion dollar pharmaceutical firm but not in an industry in which the largest players are much smaller. That kind of draconian compliance and enforcement tool is simply not appropriate in the natural products category whereas it might be in the pharmaceutical drug category.

I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate. I will be taking an active interest and involvement at the caucus committee, where my colleagues will discuss this, and also at the parliamentary committee. I intend to be a visiting member and ensure that the naturopathic physicians' concerns, as well as the concerns of other stakeholders, are clearly articulated.

I will do what I can to ensure that they are incorporated so that as we move forward Bill C-51 does what it is intended to do, which is to be a positive and important tool in protecting the safety and well-being of the consumers of the products it covers without overregulating and creating barriers to the use of those natural products that are so important to so many of us.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the way the bill is drafted, we know that probably 60% of natural health products will fail. As well, the inspectors will have huge powers to look for compliance. In fact, we have heard that Health Canada is trying right now to recruit more health inspectors from universities. There is great concern in the community that the way the bill is drafted would cause great harm to the natural health products industry.

I heard the Conservative government say that it wants to change the preamble, have a different enforcement mechanism, restrain the inspectors, have the third category legislative area, have a different definition of health products, redefine what traditional use means, including native, first nation and the 5,000 years of Chinese herbal medicine history, and a separate advisory committee.

It begs the question: why would the government not just withdraw the bill, redraft it properly and bring it back when the fall session starts? Right now we are being asked to vote for or against the bill the way it is drafted now. Even though there is some promise that amendments will be put forward in the committee, we do not know, first, whether the committee will accept these amendments and, second, whether these amendments will even be in order given how fundamental these changes are and how extensive they would be.

Why would we not say no to the bill before us, pick the good parts, redraft the bad parts and start all over again? Certainly the bill as it is now is not acceptable. Even the Conservative government says so. Why would the Liberals not join with the NDP and say no to the bill the way it is crafted now?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's deep concern about the bill. I am in complete agreement that extensive changes are needed.

However, this coming vote is a vote in principle. The principle is that patients have safe, effective and high quality products and that regulating pharmaceutical drugs and natural products for the purpose of reducing risks to health, enhancing safety and accuracy of products makes sense. I am in support of that principle.

As I said in my remarks, the way the legislation is written currently does not provide the balance we are looking for and I have major concerns about it, but those are concerns that need to be taken seriously as the bill moves forward. I would strongly exhort the government members and the other members of the committee to take the time that is needed for their work.

The committee work can be an opportunity for hearing from the stakeholders that have critical information to provide. This should not be rushed through. These are very complex issues. It is critical to find that balance of providing consumer safety without overregulating and without unintended negative consequences.

I also share the concern that we can have the right licensing compliance and enforcement rules but if we do not have the capacity to have enough inspectors or licensing officers to carry out the licensing in a timely way, then effectively it becomes a barrier, unintended or otherwise, to the use of those products. This is a major concern that also has to be addressed as the bill moves forward.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a very good and knowledgeable speech. I congratulate her. I was particularly interested in the fact that one in nine admissions to emergency at Vancouver General Hospital is pharmacologically related.

One of the concerns that the bill sort of addresses, and I am not quite sure whether the government has proposed amendments in this area, is the apparent discrepancy between what natural health products claim and what the evidence is to support the claim.

I wonder if the hon. member has given some thought to whether there should be some bringing together of the claims of the product with the evidence to support the claims for the product, be it empirical or anecdotal.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would contend that many of these natural products do not contain claims. Perhaps some do. I think the natural products industry is pretty careful not to make claims. I purchase many products that I know work. I know that based on my 35 years of experience in using them, not because the label on the bottle says to take this and it will strengthen that.

The idea of evidence also brings to the fore the difference between natural products, herbal products, homeopathic remedies, et cetera, and pharmaceutical drugs. By and large, pharmaceutical drugs are developed and sold by major corporations that can spend hundreds of millions of dollars in testing and collecting evidence to support their claims. They then have a patent on a product and can charge huge amounts.

There are some medications that run into hundreds of thousands of dollars a year with regard to being provided to the market. That is certainly not the average, but the pharmaceutical firms invest a lot in research and evidence gathering and they can then recover that.

Who is going to spend the money for double-blind trials on a herbal product for which there is no patent and no way of recovering the costs of putting that research in place? It is simply not practical, so we cannot require the same standard of testing and evidence for a natural product, because otherwise that becomes an unintended barrier to its use.

I believe approximately that one-half of the population of British Columbia uses complementary and alternative medicine at some point during the year for their health, health care and prevention. We do not want barriers to those people taking responsibility for their health.

I had a forum in greater Vancouver a couple of years ago in which I brought together the leading thinkers in naturopathics, in traditional Chinese medicine, in the natural cancer centre associated with VGH, in massage therapy and in some of the other modalities. I brought that group of leading thinkers together in a forum at the Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, which is in New Westminster, with the then minister of public health, Carolyn Bennett, to talk about how we could better integrate complementary and alternative medicine into our health care system, for all those good reasons that I have already expressed.

The key that came out of that meeting and the key request that the leaders in those other modalities had of the then minister of public health was that the federal government should be investing in research. The federal government should be providing research funding to generate the evidence, because these practitioners and physicians have experienced the evidence of the effectiveness of their products. That is why half of British Columbians seek their help: because their products do work and they do no harm. These natural products, the homeopathics, the tinctures, the organotherapies, do not send people to the emergency rooms.

We need that evidence, but we need the federal government to fund the research for it. Otherwise it will not happen.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-51.

First off, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois has been demanding for a number of years already that we look at that issue further. It seems to me that Canadians and Quebeckers are somewhat tired of occasionally being the victims of products that adversely affect their health and that of their children. There have been scandals recently. Just think of the toy scandal, for instance, involving children who suffered lead poisoning.

Quebeckers and Canadians are aware of some degree of deceit in the department stores where they buy everyday consumer items, among other things. Everyone knows that when we pick up a jar of pickles from China, the label sometimes shows that the product was made in Canada. There is false representation every step of the way. The Bloc Québécois raised that issue many years ago, calling on the government to clean up this whole area of drugs, agricultural products and cosmetics. We are pleased in that sense that the issue is being brought before the House today.

The Bloc Québécois will make sure that what I just talked about is reflected in the legislation. We have seen before obligations, everyday things, come into force under a bill, which did not reflect reality at all. That is what we want to pay attention to. It is not because the bill's title refers to tidying up the area of drugs, cosmetics and agricultural products, because the intention is stated in the title, that we should be lax.

In fact, let me say outright that the position of the Bloc Québécois is to vote yes at second reading stage, but there will surely an opportunity to take a very serious look at the bill at the Standing Committee on Health to ensure that reality is defined properly and reflected in the bill.

I have seen governments—and this one is no exception—come up with bills that they claimed would fix some social problem or other, bills that included various guidelines, amendments and new restrictions or that made laws more permissive. We need to sort out exactly what we want this bill to achieve. Naturally, the parties, including the opposition parties, will each have their way of seeing things. All I want to say is that the Standing Committee on Health will study the bill thoroughly.

For now, I will try to communicate the Bloc Québécois' opinion of what is before us now as faithfully as possible.

We also have to talk about how the government reacts and what it is doing to make sure that all products available to consumers are safe.

A number of interesting things have happened over the past few years. I certainly remember how people practically called the Bloc Québécois heretical because it wanted labelling on products. Back then, we were told, “No, no, no.” That was probably 10 years ago now.

We thought we had made some progress, but just last week, one of our colleagues introduced a bill on labelling, and the government worked with the Liberal Party to defeat it. Such things make us wonder about this government's true intentions.

I hope that we will be able to put together a good bill here, and I hope that when it becomes law, the government will actually enforce it. It is easy enough to say, “Here's the law”. It is something else entirely to enforce it, a process that is sometimes not taken seriously.

For example, take what we were told not that long ago, maybe seven or eight years ago when the labelling issue was up for discussion. People were talking about genetically modified organisms. There should have been thorough studies, and, like the United States' Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada should have studied the repercussions and the ins and outs of this issue. But the minister at the time, who is now rector of the University of Ottawa, said, “Oh no, we don't need that”.

Monsanto, a global company specializing in genetically modified products, has conducted all the studies and concluded that it was perfectly safe. In my opinion, that is a serious mistake. It is like asking a Ford dealer if Ford products are any good. What do you think his answer will be? He will say that Ford makes the best products. GM, Chrysler and Toyota representatives would say the same thing about their products.

Government organizations have to ensure that these companies comply with standards. Because of globalization and international competition, standards often vary from one country to the next. That is how we end up with Chinese pickles sold in jars made in Canada. When we are aware of that, we start noticing that the standards are different as well. Therein lies the danger.

Agriculture is affected the most by that. There are many producers in my riding. It saddens me to think that, in the U.S. and Europe among others, the agricultural industry is financed and subsidized, because in Canada we are more catholic than the Pope, so to speak, not subsidizing our agricultural industry in order to comply with the WTO. Yet, there is irrefutable evidence that the United States and the European countries are not complying.

As I said earlier, environmental standards and quality assurance standards for agricultural products in countries like China are different from ours. It is therefore easy for the Conservative government to suggest that we may not be competitive enough. Competitiveness is one factor, but when countries are permitted to subsidize their agriculture and products are allowed into Canada to which standards different from ours, much lower standards, are applied, that does not help our economy and it also puts the health and safety of Canadians et Quebeckers at risk. Attention will have to be paid to this in connection with the bill before us today.

Another interesting aspect of the bill is the tracing system. This is extremely important. When an agricultural product is recalled, we need to know where and in what conditions it was made. Until now, there has been nothing—or almost nothing—like this in place. We are happy to see that Bill C-51 contains provisions on traceability. The bill may also include the register of adverse drug reactions, at least we hope so.

Regarding the recall management system—I just mentioned recalls—if a product is found to be faulty or hazardous, there has to be a way of determining how it will be recalled. Often, hazardous products are recalled in a rush, and there is no way of knowing whether all the products have been taken off the shelf in all shopping centres. This also applies to drugs and cosmetics. We will therefore pay attention to the recall management system.

There is one thing in the bill that we will pay close attention to: regulations. This is a flaw in the House of Commons and Parliament, not just Canada's Parliament, but parliaments in general: often, bills will give responsibility for regulations to the governor in council, in other words, the cabinet, and the minister will make recommendations to the governor in council.

I experienced that myself with a bill concerning veterans that would have seen money paid annually to widows of veterans so that they could remain in their home. In the regulations, three or four months later, we noticed that the governor in council had chosen a date on which the law would be enforced, and before which anyone else involved would be left out. We made our strong opposition known.

It is the same thing with these bills. As soon as the minister and the governor in council, meaning cabinet, get too much leeway, there are surprises. If I have time, I will speak about our concerns with this bill if the minister and the governor in council are given too much leeway in regard to the regulations.

I want to issue a caution right now. The Bloc Québécois absolutely does not want natural food products to be considered drugs or cosmetics, meaning that they would be bound by this bill.

My colleague from Quebec City explained that officials had told the committee not to worry, but we are worrying nonetheless. Just because something is raised in committee does not mean that one day—maybe because of the regulations—there will not be a problem.

Many people obtain these products without a prescription, and I think that they are still in a position to do so. These people should not fall directly under this legislation; it must not apply directly to natural food products.

As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois will pay close attention to this in committee, to ensure that natural food products are not affected by this bill. Earlier I heard statistics that nearly 50% of the population uses complementary or alternative medicine, and these people should not end up being victims of this bill.

We are also concerned about encroachment because it is well known that the Bloc Québécois is very protective of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. A certain number of inspector positions will be established pursuant to the bill. However, we notice that there will be duplication in certain areas. Therefore, we have to be careful because, at present, several duties have been delegated to Quebec inspectors. In my opinion, if more federal inspection positions are created, it is important that there not be a duplication of services in general. That runs the risk of being very expensive for taxpayers and of causing friction also. We believe that it is important to try to avoid encroachment.

With respect to this bill, we also examined the famous ban on drug advertising. I find it interesting. I love American sports and often listen to football, hockey, baseball, or basketball games on American stations. But I also have time to work. Sometimes, I listen while ironing my shirts because I have to come to Ottawa on Monday and I have no one to wash my shirts. Believe it or not I listen to the football game while ironing my shirts or sometimes while reading documents. I can chew gum and walk at the same time.

However, on the topic of an advertising ban, there is a new American dream—drugs. It is incredible. Everyone knows the ads for Cialis and Viagra. We see a very healthy looking man with his girlfriend, wife or life partner and he is always bursting with energy. That is the new American dream: a fulfilling sex life. Yes. It should not surprise us; we see it on television. That is what the ads aim for. And a few minutes later, in another ad, they are selling Celebrex. If you have a bit of joint pain, you should hurry to your doctor to get a prescription for Celebrex. It is important because it not only solves the problem, but it also reduces your chances of arthritis in the future. We can see where this ad leads. There are many more. There is Lipitor—their ad says that if your cholesterol is the least bit elevated that it is dangerous and you should go to see your doctor.

In a few years, American advertising for drugs has gone from $50 million to $1.8 billion. Pharmaceutical companies are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and because of their generous spirit. Investing $1.8 billion in advertising ensures that people will stock up on drugs. This causes many things, including over-consumption.

The companies do not tell us this, but the person who wants to live the American dream today, the one who watches football and wants to become Adonis, will have to take Cialis or Viagra, Celebrex to avoid any aches and Lipitor to ensure low cholesterol. That is the new American dream.

We cannot allow this to happen in Canada or in Quebec. It is extremely important to ban the advertising of drugs. Advertising leads to excessive consumption. And what does excessive consumption lead to? It not only causes side effects in people, but it also causes the price of drugs to rise.

Today, almost 40 million Americans are unable to afford the drugs they need. I have even seen busloads of people, sponsored by U.S. senators, come to my riding to buy drugs because they were affordable. The ban on advertising of drugs should continue.

Another aspect of the bill before us is progressive licensing. This is something new. Previously, Health Canada conducted studies and if all the studies were conclusive and all the clinical trials were conclusive, the drug would be released. Now there will be a new approach that could be more progressive. The drug could be released before the experiments are completed.

There are some people who may need that. When people are truly desperate, they sometimes need to resort to extreme or innovative treatment. Even though some drugs have not yet been approved by Health Canada, it is possible under certain conditions that progressive licensing of those drugs will be allowed. Nonetheless, this cannot be used as an excuse to license a drug with great haste. That is the risk we run.

I have a minute or two left. I just want to come back to some of the regulations that could be risky. Clause 30, which addresses the regulations, very clearly states that the minister may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect. Potentially, the minister can act in various areas, including product labelling, purity standards, the way in which clinical trials are conducted and the exemption of products from the legislation.

If we open the door to concepts as basic as those and put them in the hands of the minister, we run the risk that the government will take advantage and that the provisions of a bill will go too far or not far enough at the discretion of the minister and the Governor in Council.

These questions are extremely important. I would like to reiterate the Bloc Québécois' position. The Bloc Québécois has been waiting for this bill. We have waited long enough for this bill, so we will take the time needed to study it carefully at the Standing Committee on Health. In that regard, I trust my colleagues on that committee. They will do an excellent job.

The position I just mentioned is the Bloc Québécois' position. We reserve the right to vote against it at third reading. At second reading, we will vote in favour of the bill. In committee, we will do our job and, depending on the gains we make, we will dispose of this bill at third reading.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member mentioned advertising, because I do not want to see more advertising either.

A constituent, Brian, wrote in an email:

Bill C-51 was brought to my attention by a person who has successfully controlled the symptoms of his diabetes, arthritis and bipolar depression with diet and supplements. He is afraid he will lose his right and ability to do this under Bill C-51. He will then have a choice to go back on Big Pharma's anti-psychotics and other drugs, which did not work well and caused intolerable side effects, or to sink into psychosis and eventual death. That's an example how loss of choice will affect an individual.

I want to make sure that does not happen. I hope the member would agree.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, natural health products are an important issue. Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies do not see things the same way. If there is a chance we might try to control pharmaceutical companies and to control natural food products, that could negatively affect the latter products.

I would like to tell my hon. colleague from Yukon that we have thought of that. For many people, I think the use of natural health products often prevents them from falling into the trap of pharmaceutical products and side effects. So, yes, we will look into that question at the Standing Committee on Health.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have eight minutes remaining for questions and comments following oral question period.

We will now move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that Bill C-51 has attracted a fair bit of attention. We have been debating it again today.

Bill C-51 is an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. Needless to say, the Food and Drugs Act definitely needs updating. It is an old act. It goes back to about 1934. It has had a few tweaks along the way, but certainly it is time for some updates to the Food and Drugs Act.

There are some good provisions in the bill, that is for sure, including life cycle monitoring of pharmaceutical drugs and mandatory reporting of adverse events. These are very positive things that need to be done because there are serious concerns about these products.

The public response overwhelmingly on the negative side has been over concerns about what will happen to the natural health products industry under the regulations.

In illustrating some of those concerns, I wish to make reference to a letter that I received recently from a number of very distinguished and concerned scientists, which illustrates the concerns that are out there. I received this letter on May 4. It is a copy of a letter to the minister and states:

We, the undersigned, are physicians, scientists and practitioners of international origin with considerable experience in the use of natural health products. We are gathered in Vancouver at the Fairmont Hotel to attend the 37th Annual International Conference on Orthomolecular Medicine...

We are most concerned that the Bill will lead to loss of access to valuable food supplements and other nutritional products for our patients and for many others, who have often found such products to be essential in maintaining their health.

Another point they make is this:

Nutritional products are qualitatively different from pharmaceutical products and carry an undetectably small risk of harm....

They provide a reference from the journals about that. They continue:

There are therefore no grounds to impose on them the same risk-benefit analysis structure that is proposed for all therapeutic products under this bill.

The majority of organizations and commercial bodies operating in the natural product field are run by individuals or are small businesses. The regulatory hurdles proposed will be too high for many of them to achieve, and the penalties proposed for infringements of this bill are grossly disproportionate and unnecessarily severe.

They go on to state:

We are also concerned at the potential impact on the regulatory climate in our own countries, given the international trend to harmonization.

We encourage your department to open dialogue with our Canadian colleagues in the hope we can find a workable solution.

This letter is signed by scientists from around the world. They are from the Netherlands, Japan, the United States, Finland and Norway. There is a PhD neurochemist from the U.S.A. Others are from Switzerland, Spain, Mexico, and other countries. There is Professor Harold Foster, PhD, from Victoria.

I use this only by way of illustration. This discussion we are having in Canada about Bill C-51 to amend the Food and Drugs Act is being noticed by health care practitioners from other countries. They are concerned about the impact it will have on regulations in their own countries.

One of the points they raised at the end is that they encourage the department to “open dialogue with our Canadian colleagues in the hope we can find a workable solution”.

I know that since the bill has been introduced most of my colleagues here in the House have had a fair bit of representation from concerned citizens. I am sure that most members have heard from constituents. At the latest count in my office, I have had 380 responses raising concerns about the bill. I am sure that others have had dozens if not hundreds of representations and I know there has been a fair bit of concern and discussion.

In response to that, the Minister of Health has launched some consultations with industry across the country. The minister and his team were out in Vancouver for consultations and in Toronto and other major centres as they consulted with industry leaders about how to remedy the concerns that are out there. I know that he is working on some amendments and I look forward to seeing them presented in the House shortly.

At this second reading stage of the bill, it is certainly not possible for the minister to introduce amendments, but I understand that there will be a forthcoming indication of some amendments that our government members will bring forward at the health committee if and when the legislation passes second reading.

Therefore, I welcome those amendments. I look forward to what I understand will include an attempt to create a legislative third category. That is something that people have been interested in. That is one of the major concerns that have been expressed and there will be other substantial amendments to alleviate the way the bill would be applied as well as to clarify concerns that have been raised. We look forward to those amendments coming forward and being able to go over in detail what those changes mean.

The minister stated that it is not his nor the government's intention to restrict natural health product availability in Canada. I am sure and I have every reason to believe that he is very sincere in making those statements. I have no reason not to believe him or the government in their intentions.

The problem is that, given the history of actions by Health Canada over the past several years, the increased powers and the changes proposed by Bill C-51 give informed Canadians a very great cause for concern. In that regard, I would like to review some of the history and illustrate a couple of the concerns related to the bill as it stands.

Going back over at least four previous health ministers, there was an effort to regulate natural health products as drugs under the Food and Drugs Act. By the way, I think everyone recognized that there was a need to bring in regulations for natural health products. Everyone wants to make sure that we have good manufacturing practices, we need office inspections and some quality control measures there, and we certainly want to make sure that what is on the label is actually in the bottle.

So, certainly regulation is necessary. Everyone is in support of regulation. It is the type of regulation that is being considered here and the concerns about whether those regulations are appropriate for the low risk and the natural character of these products. By nature they are low risk, they are low cost, they are non-patentable items, they are more akin to food, concentrated food items, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, which are components of protein, and that is the stuff we are made out of, and therefore by nature it is low risk and well tolerated in biological systems.

Going back through a bit of the history, there was a huge public response out of the attempt by former minister David Dingwall to regulate natural health products as drugs. It was followed up by Allan Rock. Allan Rock, as minister, put the brakes on the process and commissioned the health committee to investigate and produce a report. There were widespread consultations and a report was tabled in 1998, making some 53 recommendations.

That was followed by the creation of a transition team of experts. Some 17 experts came together to try to organize how would this new office of natural health products come together and what form it would take. They made recommendations that were published in a report in the year 2000.

I note that the transition team, in their report, had a vision that they articulated there. They hoped that the minister would be a champion for a new era for NHPs, natural health products; that vitamins and minerals would take their place in improving the health of Canadians and the health care system in Canada, that the minister would be a champion for helping natural health products find their way to taking their rightful place in strengthening Canadians, improving prevention of disease, promoting wellness, and helping keep people off the waiting lists that are so troubling to anyone trying to access health services for serious health failures.

In the 37th Parliament I introduced Bill C-420 which was to move the natural health products department office, which changed names from the office of the ONHP to the natural health product directorate, under the food side of regulations. So we had food and drugs, and we would take it from the drug side and move it under the food side because it was more akin to foods than it was to drugs.

That bill died when the election of June 2004 was called and it reappeared in the 38th Parliament with the help of my colleague, the member for Oshawa, who tabled the bill and we got agreement to keep the name.

The outcome of that was that NHPs were placed not where we wanted them under food, but they remained as a subclass under the drug side of the regulations. So, this is where are we since that day.

Currently, natural health products are regulated as a subclass of drugs for regulatory purposes, although they have their own regulations. That has been the status since 2006. When we started this process there were some 50,000 to 60,000 products on the market. What has been happening in the interim is that there are about 6,000 products that have been approved.

I notice the member for Yukon, who is still with us in the debate, in his speech earlier mentioned there were some 33,000 to 40,000 products backlogged and that is probably accurate. There are about 6,000 that have gone through the approval process of that huge number that were out there a few years ago.

About half of the products applying do not make it through the regulatory process. A lot of good products are dropping off the shelves in Canada under the current regulatory regime. Those that are approved are the simple ones. They are single monograph products, not the combined products. Many of the more effective well-known and popular remedies that are out there are multi-ingredient products. Most of those have not even started into the process yet. So a lot of products are not making it through.

Complicating it further is the fact that many good products that come from outside the country from the United States, for example, are not being shipped into Canada because the producers find the regulatory regime is too onerous and the market is too small. They have just stopped shipping their product to Canada, so we are losing products that way. That is the current situation.

People in the industry are frustrated at the lengthy delays in receiving an NPN and lengthy requests for more information. It seems products like Red Bull or an energy drink gets an NPN fairly readily. They will never have a hope of impacting anybody's health, but they might give people a kick or a little better high, or keep them awake if they are mixed, as some young people do, with alcohol which we would not recommend. We would end up with a drunk who is a little more alert.

Those products seem to make it through the regulatory process in a flash, but natural health products that could have a real impact on serious illnesses seem to be having a hard time getting through.

I want to return to the letter from the scientist. Speaking at a conference just a month ago, so we are not talking ancient history, Dr. Bonnie Kaplan from the University of Calgary spoke about her experience with the product Empowerplus. I know others in the House have mentioned this product already and probably most members have some knowledge of this vitamin and mineral product produced in Alberta. It had a profound impact on people with bipolar disease.

This product attracted some attention in Alberta. The government of Alberta said whoa, there is a huge problem, a lot of people seem to be taking this. It had the Alberta Science and Research Authority examine the product and it commissioned a study at the University of Calgary with some $544,000 in funding. The initial results were very promising. In fact, there were some four peer review articles published.

About this time, Health Canada moved in to shut down the study under the regulations of the day. It called on the RCMP to raid the company and contact 3,000 Canadians, and order them back on their psychiatric drugs even though many of them were taking the product with the knowledge of their physician and many of them had been well for years by simply taking vitamins and minerals.

I want to use that as an illustration of why people are alarmed at the regulations in Bill C-51. It is not simply what is in the bill, it is the behaviour of the department in the last number of years that has people alarmed. Given the tools that are in Bill C-51, it is concerns that with the wrong attitude this could ensure that a lot of very good products will never see the light of day in our country given this response. I mentioned: thousands of Canadians were taking the product, the Alberta response, the early results, and that Health Canada shut down the study, and sent in the RCMP.

Just to go on with Empowerplus for a minute, there was a researcher from Harvard, Dr. Charles Popper, a world renowned psychopharmacologist. He testified at a court case just after the last election. I unfortunately missed it, but I did read his testimony. He testified that he learned how to help people get off drugs from the lay people in this company who have accumulated a lot of experience trying to help people with their condition by taking these vitamins, minerals and amino-acids, and improving their mental health.

I wish members could have been there to hear testimony from a woman named Sabina from Renfrew. She had been on psychiatric drugs for 18 years and in spite of that, in and out of hospital.

Sadly, with the condition she was afflicted with, when she was not trying to take her own life, she was trying to take her husband's life. She had been on vitamins a year and a half, when I met her, and had not had a single failure. That is something that, I think, would attract some attention. Some people may say this is helping, although it is anecdotal evidence, but she was one of about 3,000 Canadians who had improved.

By the time I met her, a year and a half after taking these products, she was no longer trying to kill herself. She was working and paying taxes. I have to admit as a Conservative, I like that. She is also volunteering. She is not on the high needs list but back out in society and producing. When I saw her at the court case, where she testified for this company against Health Canada, she had lost 60 pounds, was off all her medication, and taking nothing but vitamins.

The company she worked for was so impressed with her that it sent her to get a university degree and she is volunteering to train horses on the side. She is a tremendously productive lady, a lady with a tremendous sense of humour. I wish everyone could meet her.

I wish everyone could have met no less than the former deputy prime minister of Norway when he was in Ottawa. He came to meet with Health Canada officials about this product because he had a child that was out of control and nobody in Norway had been able to help him. He heard about this product and ordered it for his child. His child improved so much that he wanted to import this product to help other people in Norway, but he could not because there was a warning on the Health Canada website, which is still there to this day, that says this is an untested and dangerous product. Therefore, even with his connections, he was not able to import the product.

When I had lunch with him, he was later scheduled to meet with Health Canada officials. When they found out why he was here, they cancelled his appointment. It seems, sadly, that no one at Health Canada was willing to meet with Sabina or with this gentleman or with thousands of Canadians. The minister of the day was not willing to meet with them.

Everyone taking the product was concerned when Health Canada was trying to shut down this product at the border because the minister of the day had the attitude or the approach that this was an untested. The minister said, “It could be thalidomide”.

That is disappointing, but that kind of attitude seems to be what is prevailing at Health Canada, even to this day, and that is why people are concerned about the implications in the bill. This is the same Health Canada that could be handed extraordinary and, some might say, draconian provisions by the bill.

There are some concerns. People would like to know that the vision of the transition team would come to pass and that the regulatory regime would be a friendly one that helps natural health products, which by nature are low risk, become more available.

One of the concerns is subsection 15.1(4), which says simply that the minister has the power to put any product or class of products under prescription only status. The challenge is simply that vitamins and minerals, nutritional products, amino-acids are what we are made of. They have always been in the public domain, but under the powers in the bill the minister could simply move something from the natural health product class over to a drug class in certain potencies. The minister has those powers. That is one concern.

Another concern is in regard to clinical trials. The bill says that clinical trials must be approved for designated therapeutic products. We depend on most of the research on natural health products to understand how they work. We found out a little while ago that vitamin D has a big impact on people with multiple sclerosis and now the recommendation is that we should be taking vitamin D to reduce a whole host of other conditions, including many cancers.

We are concerned about the availability of these products. University research could be put at risk. Some would argue that universities could be asked if they applied for a clinical trial for basic research.

Finally, the definition of government has people concerned. I will finish with this simple remark. The government, under this definition, could be another international government or agency that could bring in regulations from the World Health Organization or Codex, for example, and impose them on the Canadian public without due consideration or consultation here at home. Those are some of the concerns.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, constituents in my riding of Newton—North Delta have many concerns. They are very worried.

I had the opportunity to meet a couple in their seventies, Adella and Richard Matthews. When they came to my office, they expressed concern that when they go to doctors now, they have to wait two hours. They are worried that if this legislation goes through, they will not be able to obtain the products they have been using successfully for the last 30 years, which are helping their health. Their health will deteriorate and they will lose the chance of using those products.

How would the member address the concern of those constituents who think that these natural health products will go under prescription and will not be available to them at a reasonable cost?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern raised by the member for Newton—North Delta.

Many Canadians are concerned. Recent statistics tell us about 71% of Canadians are taking some form of vitamins and minerals regularly. I suppose that is because they believe it makes a difference, and it is good advice. In my opinion, we should be taking something.

The problem seems to come from Health Canada's long-standing approach that people should not be allowed to what it calls self-diagnose or self-treat for what it wants to define as serious disease.

That attitude itself may be the root of the problem. It seems the attitude may be a bias that is as old as the Food and Drugs Act itself. It may be an entrenched bias. I use the word “bias” to simply mean it is our world view. I suppose we all have a bias. I suppose the only people who do not have a bias are the ones who have not thought about something long enough to form an opinion.

My point is there seems to be a problem with the way the thinking has been in the past in Health Canada. I hope we can see this change, that a different vision could be accomplished. It may be that our minister will become the champion the transition team has looked for, someone who would like to see natural products take their rightful place.

However, it is an attitude. Some people think we should be unable to get help without medical supervision, such as somebody takes Empowerplus for mental health, which is a serious illness, and the fact that vitamins and minerals, which by and large are in the public domain, would help them with that problem.

The challenge is this approach has left us with a problem that is still getting worse. Here we see something that is offering great promise from the public domain, vitamins and minerals helping to sort out a biochemical problem. Maybe we need to freshen our outlook and ensure we have people in charge of the regulations and a perspective that protects the interests of the public to ensure we investigate, analyze and study the things that are most hopeful.

A tremendous number of articles have come out about vitamin D. Just yesterday there was another article in the newspapers about vitamin D and calcium reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes.

For chocolate lovers in the room today, there was an article in the same paper yesterday, which said that chocolate had Tryptophan in it. This is an amino acid that Health Canada took off the market for a while. Tryptophan is an amino acid found in turkey and chicken soup, but it is important in producing Serotonin, which is important in regulating mood and reducing anxiety. All the anti-depressant drugs, or many of them, are selected Serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSUI, so we do not break down the Serotonin and it makes us feel better.

A simple thing like chocolate, or Tryptophan, an amino acid, if we have enough of it in our system, helps to calm people down. Maybe we should try to ensure those are more available rather than less available.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate the hon. member and express to the House how much we all appreciate the wisdom he brings. He has obviously been on this issue for many years.

I would like to ask a question on some of the questions he posed in his speech.

In the government's response, the Health Minister has chosen to send a letter to the chair of the health committee expressing these proposed amendments about which the member has heard. There are really three key amendments. The third is the legislated category, and that will be my main question. Without a legislated category for natural health products, I think the concern would be greater, that pharmaceutical companies would ultimately be able to take over the natural health products.

My hon. friend opposite asked about the costs being driven up, and this is how that would happen. In the third legislated category pharmaceutical companies could not take it over. As a result, the prices would stay the same.

I simply mention for my hon. friend that the research under the third proposed amendment, the research required by natural health products, would take into consideration historical empirical evidence. We have traditional histories, which I think are very respectful of our aboriginal communities and our Chinese communities, for example, that have used products without harm for 5,000 years. The proposed amendments the minister has put on the table will actually help all those areas.

The final issue is Health Canada, which is a huge concern of all members here. The legislation and the proposed amendments will point out that there will be a need or a conviction on the part of Health Canada to act in good faith and act reasonably. That will be worded in the new documents and the proposed changes.

Could the member comment on how the third category would stop some of the pharmaceutical influence?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good point raised by my colleague from Cambridge. I know he has a big interest in this file as well and a lot of experience in using natural health products and making them available to his patients in his former career.

I look forward to hearing that information come forward from the minister. I am sure he has done his best to try to remedy this, to make it palatable and make it work better. That is the minister's interest at this time.

I have not seen the fine print or the details of how they propose to do that. I hope it will accomplish the minister's intention. From previous attempts, we were told we had a third category under the Food and Drugs Act, when they simply took the regs and plunked them as a subclass of drugs.

With respect to type II diabetes, we had a big push for aboriginal communities to enhance the diagnosis for type II diabetes on reserve, since that is a federal responsibility. The same day there was an article in the local paper here about a herbal product from native aboriginal history, which turned out to be just as successful as the best drugs in managing type II diabetes. I wonder why we did not choose to promote that approach first in their community, which was a long-standing part of their culture.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a document on the Health Canada website talks about Bill C-51 and natural health products. There are 42 questions and each one of them basically pooh-poohs all the concerns raised by Canadians.

Now the member has laid out that significant amendments have been proposed. It means this document is not worth the paper on which it is written. It means Health Canada does not have the confidence of that member or any other member across the way. It also means the bill should be withdrawn now, amendments made and re-submitted to the House so Canadians can have a bill with which they can work. To send it to committee without these amendments will complicate the process.

Why will the bill not be withdrawn now?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact amendments are coming is a good thing. We must remember this is a big bill and it is complicated. It does not deal only with natural health products. It deals with drugs, cells, blood, cell cultures. There is a whole lot more in the bill than natural health products. It seems the biggest concerns have been in this realm.

We hope the amendments, which will be forthcoming in time for committee to take them right at the beginning of its deliberations, will help to ameliorate the situation.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-51. My constituents have deluged my office with emails, letters and campaign materials. The community has huge concerns about the bill. It is a key bill for the future of the health of Canadians. Therefore, it needs careful deliberation and study.

While the bill has been introduced by the government with the goal of improving the health and well-being of Canadians, there are serious concerns that it will have the opposite effect. We want the products and the medications we use to do no harm. That has not been the case in the past, where everything from children's toys to food to pharmaceutical products have done great harm to Canadians because of the lack of government vigilance and regulation.

We want our products to be safe and effective, but many people use natural health products. They are very concerned about the legislation. They are concerned that somehow by using the term therapeutic in Bill C-51, natural products and the practice of natural medicine will be lumped in with the pharmaceutical products to which people want to exercise choice to choose an alternative.

We have heard in the House before that in previous hearings in the 1990s, the Standing Committee on Health recommended a separate special definition and separate regulations for dealing with natural products. To me, that makes very good sense, but that is not what is contemplated with this legislation.

I believe the people who have raised this alarm across the country have absolute validity in raising their concerns. They do not want to use natural products that are not good for them, but they understand natural health products are not the same as pharmaceutical products. Chemical compounds are required to have very rigorous testing before they are allowed on the market, and even then not with always universal success.

I want to read a couple of the letters I have received. They have been send by very many eloquent, well-informed people who are very concerned about the legislation. I will only read a couple of letters.

The first one is from a woman in my riding. She is a community leader and works in health care. She says:

“I'm writing to express my concerns about Bill C-51 and the impact it will have on the ability of my naturopathic doctor to treat my health concerns safely and effectively. As an informed patient, I have chosen to be treated by a naturopathic doctor utilizing natural therapies and substances to ensure optimal health. I'd like some assurances that my choice to see a naturopathic doctor will not be negatively affected by Bill C-51.

I have the following questions: Will Bill C-51 exclude my naturopathic doctor from having access to all the products that they need to treat all my health concerns? Will Bill C-51 result in fewer natural health products being available in the Canadian marketplace? Will inspectors have the ability to enter premises under the search and seizure provisions without a warrant or a judge's approval?

I support the need for regulation that ensures that the products recommended by my naturopathic doctor are safe and effective, but I do not support legislation that treats natural health products in the same manner as pharmaceutical products.

Now would be an excellent time for the government to implement a third strategy for natural health products as was recommended by the Standing Committee on Health in 1998”.

I have one other letter. This is from a person who signs it F.P. Jr. It says:

“I'm writing to express my disapproval and disagreement with Bill C-51. It's something to make every democratic person's blood run cold. The bill proposes significant changes to the current Food and Drugs Act that will have wide-ranging negative implications for Canadians.

I'm a paraplegic and with what Bill C-51 entails it would totally eradicate my essential needs of natural products due to my debilitating condition.

Further on it states, “I intensely disagree with Bill C-51 and its aim to remove parliamentary decision making and oversight from national legislation. Bill C-51 is intended to replace democratic representative government with unelected closed door decision making which will bind all citizens”.

There is real concern about the wording which would lump natural products and all kinds of alternative health remedies in with pharmaceutical drugs. There is also concern about the process that would take place for the approval of these remedies. There are estimates that up to 70% of natural health products would fail to meet the more stringent testing requirements that are in place for pharmaceuticals.

One writer stated, “There is concern that Health Canada inspectors would create an equivalent of a police state in terms of their powers to search private property for illegal natural health products. It makes me want to lock up the vitamin C I take in the morning. It is very troubling for people who believe that this is the best thing for their health”.

There is also concern that Bill C-51 describes a practitioner as someone who is authorized under the law of a province to prescribe or dispense prescription therapeutic drugs. Since naturopathic doctors do not have prescribing rights, they would be prevented from making recommendations to their patients.

These are some of the major concerns I have been contacted about. It seems that if there were a third category created and if there were regulations for these natural products, that would go some way to alleviating the concerns that people have. However, these are not the only concerns about this bill.

Certainly there is concern about direct to consumer advertising. Under the current law there is a very clearcut, straightforward ban on advertising for health products and pharmaceuticals. This bill would allow that ban to be bypassed at the cabinet table. That the cabinet could be subject to phenomenal pressure by lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry, I believe, is not in the best interests of Canadians. Therefore, I am also very concerned about the weakening of the ban on advertising. Already there are loopholes in the ban and companies are advertising. We see tongue in cheek, cheeky ads on television, where it is hide and seek about the product that is being advertised. This is a loophole and, in fact, that loophole should be closed, not opened up, which it well could be by this legislation.

There is concern about the role of the pharmaceutical industry in influencing this legislation. There are many people who choose natural products because they have a mistrust of the role of the pharmaceutical industry, sometimes justified. We have seen cases such as Vioxx and others that have created terrible problems for people. There are some perhaps that are not justified, where the pharmaceuticals that are available to us have been of great assistance to people. What is of concern is the power the pharmaceutical industry has in terms of influencing legislators in terms of public policy.

As the industry critic for my party, I was very concerned about the proposed changes to the drug patent laws that will allow the pharmaceutical industry to continue to evergreen or extend the patent protection for certain drugs and to deny generic drug manufacturers the opportunity to offer their products in the marketplace. There will be a huge cost to the public. This will cost public health plans, private health plans and individuals hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a huge change. The proposed changes were put out without prior notification, without consultation, except to the pharmaceutical industry. There are real concerns about what this continued evergreening and continued patent protection will mean.

There are real concerns about the role of the pharmaceutical industry. There are many people who choose another path, that of naturopathic medicine and naturopathic doctors. We need to reassure them that they will be able to continue to use the products that they believe are assisting with their health and that they know are essential to their well-being.

I just want to say with all the clarity I can that I oppose Bill C-51 as it now stands. Not only could it open the door to direct consumer advertising, with which I strongly disagree, but it gives too much discretion to the minister. It is a thinly veiled attempt to bring in natural health products under the rubric of pharmaceuticals.

Natural health products are a vital component to our health care system. They should be a separate category with separate regulations. We should be operating not on a risk management approach but on a do no harm approach. This bill does not achieve that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When we next return to the study of Bill C-51, there will be eight minutes left for the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-51. This bill has caused great concern among my constituents and other Canadians. Many of them are seniors and ailing citizens.

For several months I have been receiving letter after letter from my constituents regarding their concerns about this bill. They are ordinary Canadians who are worried that they will not be able to get the natural health products that they have been using successfully for years. They are worried that Health Canada will be given police state powers. I have had the opportunity to meet with many of them as well. The bill is alarming people who are not political. A constituent of mine, Johan Ghazali, wrote:

While I don't also get involved in politics, I am concerned about a new Bill that will affect many Canadians including myself. The Bill in question is Bill C-51 that is being ramped through Parliament without much debate.

On the surface, C-51 appears to be about protecting the public health, but has many profound and perturbing implications.

Yesterday we learned in a regular government member's speech that this bill is incomplete. The government will be proposing major amendments to the bill. This proves that the concerns of my constituents are justified.

I am greatly concerned about the issues raised by my constituents. I am committed to improving the safety and health of Canadians. I support measures which will strengthen the regulatory process to ensure that Canadians are able to access the safest and most effective therapeutic products.

I firmly believe that Canadians have a fundamental right to have access and choice in treatment options regarding their health. Time after time, the government's policy has been to bring the message from Ottawa to Canadians. The Conservatives are tight-lipped about the information, never saying anything but the Prime Minister's talking points.

That is not my way of doing things. That is not what my constituents want me to do. My constituents elected me to bring their message to Ottawa. That is what I am doing and it is what I will keep doing.

We should ensure that this legislation does not further restrict the use, sale and distribution of safe natural health products. We need to balance the controls with the danger. My constituents are telling me that the drugs on the market are not a great risk to the health of Canadians.

One of my constituents, Ms. Emoke Szijarto, wrote:

--I have been using “natural remedies” since my childhood instead of taking harmful chemicals. My father who is a doctor has prescribed us natural remedies when we were sick and he is a great advocate of using natural things in healing. I learnt from him, and wish to follow it.

Many more of my constituents use natural health products to improve their well-being, as do many other Canadians. Last Friday I met with a couple in their seventies, Adella and Richard Matthew, who are in good health. They say their vitality comes from the use of these products for the past 30 years, but they are worried. They are worried that they will not be able to get those products anymore. They are worried that they will need prescriptions which would involve a doctor's appointment which is hard to get. They are worried that they will be punished for recommending products to their friends. They are not alone.

My constituents Randy and Terri Pope wrote that this bill:

—goes against everything that the average Canadian citizen believes in, such as freedom of choice and freedom of speech. My mother and father were born and raised in this great Country, and I'm sure my mother would roll over in her grave in disgust if she heard of this outrageous proposal. How dare this Government try to control how I decide to care for my health.

There are many legitimate reasons to use these products. Some of my constituents want to lower the costs of their medication. Others want to avoid unpleasant side effects. Some believe that alternative therapies are simply more effective.

Another one of my constituents wrote:

I am a 31 year old male suffering from sever Sudden Onset Arthritis. At it's worst this disease has totally handicapped my mobility. Not satisfied with the solutions offered to me by mainstream North American medication I turned to the recently provincially acknowledged Traditional Chinese Medicine profession and have been receiving treatment...for the past two years. The success of the treatments has been phenomenal in that I am now mobile again....The TCM treatments I have been involved with have none where as the Mainstream solution had many side effects that I was unwilling to live with.

I support the right to meet these needs with natural drug products.

There is a great concern that the bill will lump natural health products into the same regulatory regime as drugs and be subject to a higher burden of regulation. It would move them and several others into the same heading and not differentiate between drugs and natural health products.

I support the rights of consumers to fair and accurate product information. The claims about health benefits made on the packages and in the marketing of these products must be truthful and honest. They must not mislead Canadians. I support efforts to improve enforcement of these principles.

The government says that it has no intention to permit direct-to-consumer advertising, yet the bill leaves a loophole that could allow pharmaceutical companies to directly advertise drugs to consumers through television, radio and print, as they do in the neighbouring United States of America. This could drive up the health care costs and influence which drugs people take. It would take advertising out of the hands of Parliament. That is a serious concern.

Finally, my constituents are concerned that tighter regulations would benefit drug companies. Natural health products are one of the few competitors to that large, well-financed industry. Undermining them would benefit their bottom line.

My constituent, W.R. Blair, is very concerned about these changes. He wrote:

The language of the Bill is a true reflection of slippery and slimy corporate tactics which should be viewed as criminal conspiracy in my view....

This dirty stinking backroom deal furthers my belief that corporations have bought and paid for legislative compliance...

The government needs to assure Canadians that big pharma is not the driving force behind the bill.

There is work to be done on the existing act. Recent incidents of unsafe food, health and consumer products have underscored the need to modernize the Food and Drugs Act. It was introduced back in the 1950s. I support modernizing the regulatory system. We need to improve the surveillance of these products throughout their life cycle.

Yesterday we learned that the government would propose three major amendments in committee to address these serious concerns. To the best of my knowledge, the Conservatives intend to separate natural health products into their own legislative category, make it clear that the regulation of natural health products is separate, clarify the powers of inspectors and set up an advisory committee.

These are significant amendments, which will dramatically change the treatment of natural health products. This means Health Canada does not have the confidence of any of the government members.

The government is proposing major changes that are outlined in nothing but a speech. It reminds me of the documentation-free unveiling of its defence strategy all over again.

It is my understanding that some of the Conservative MPs wrote a letter to the health committee chair outlining the changes. Yet no members from my party have it. This is shocking. All members were elected to represent the interest of their constituents in Parliament. Does the government think some MPs are more equal than others? That is no way to govern in a minority Parliament situation.

How am I supposed to comment on these improvements when they have not even been drafted yet? We should be debating the real bill. I agree with the member for Mississauga South. If the government is serious, the bill can be withdrawn now, amendments can made and re-submitted to the House so Canadians can have the real bill and we can all have a real debate. I welcome the direction of these amendments and look forward to studying them when they are finished.

I see some of the members on the Conservative bench laughing about this. In fact, it is a laughing stock. The Minister of Health has written a letter to the health committee and it is not available to all 308 members in the House who have equal representation. It is very important from that perspective.

Again, I still welcome the direction of these amendments and look forward to studying them when they are finished, or are made public.

Judy LeBeau, one of my constituents, would welcome them as well. She writes:

The debate surrounding C-51 is an excellent opportunity for the Government to make good on previous commitments to create a third category for natural health products, which are low risk and have demonstrated benefits for the health and wellbeing of Canadians.

From the beginning, the government has failed to reach out to the grassroots. It has been clear for months that ordinary Canadians care about the bill. Yet the government ignored their concerns and refused to have a dialogue with regular people. When the government finally put out answers their questions, it did not make it easy to access that information. Even the elderly couple I met with last week could not find it. Even if people find it, these major amendments, which the minister will propose to the committee, will change the intent of the bill and change all the questions and answers on that website. This failure has worsened confusion in the public and scared ailing and wonderful Canadians.

I support the right of my constituents to have choice in health treatments. Part of that choice is having access to honest and safe natural products.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I want to congratulate the hon. member, but I would like to ask him a question. The reason I guess I would like to do that is I was very confused by his speech.

On one hand, he complained that the government did not go out and speak to people, which we did. That is where the amendments and suggested amendments have come from, because we listened to Canadians and stakeholders. He is wrong, even on some of the things he has said himself.

Why would the member come to the House of Commons with a speech like that and mislead Canadians? I spoke with the member yesterday. We talked about all the amendments. He now pretends they did not exist and the bill is a bad bill, yet he knows full well that we are at second reading. This is what we do in the House of Commons. This is where we have debate with members participating. This is where we come up with ideas to make the bills better.

I do not understand the logic that it is somehow wrong to amend a bill. We have proposed certain amendments that will alleviate all the concerns the member has raised in his speech. The member knew that before presenting his speech. I am curious why the member would stand in the House and mislead Canadians in such a fashion.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question of the member for Cambridge is exactly where I wanted to go. I asked the member for a copy of the letter so I could see the amendments. In response he told me that he did not have the letter from the minister to the health committee.

How do we know whether those amendments even exist? We have to assume it. This is exactly the problem with the government. It is very tight-lipped. If it were so open and so honest, then it should share those amendments right here.

The right thing to do is to withdraw the bill and then bring forward the amendments. We should bring the real bill into the House so members can have a real debate on it. It is not only us. My constituents should be able to look at the amendments and make comments on them.

The exact policy of the government is that it does not want to share the information with the grassroots.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have three short questions and comments.

First, for the experts on the bill who are watching, as I said in my previous speech, it is very important for one of my constituents that Empowerplus continues to be legally available. I hope they would confirm to me by email or some other means that it is the case.

Second, the member for Cambridge, with whom I mostly agree on this bill, has to understand that the reason the members have asked to consider the bill before second reading is there are so many amendments both by the government and others. The experience we have had in the past is when we get to second reading, we cannot change things that much.

We had an example in one committee where something was changed in a clause from year to two years and the Conservative chair of the committee ruled it out of order, it was too much change. Therefore, we can understand people's hesitancy and why they would prefer the bill to go to committee before second reading.

A question I have for the member is from one of my constituents, Drew. It is very short, but it reflects a concern about which other constituents have also written. He says:

I would not be writing this letter if this bill had no “teeth”, but unfortunately (under section 23) it gives government agents unprecedented power to search, confiscate and prosecute people....

Does the member have any comments on the regulatory and enforcement mechanisms in the bill?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Yukon for his work on this bill, for his speech in the House yesterday, and for his commitment to his constituents.

When it comes to enforcement, many of my constituents are fearful that inspectors will be able to go into their bedrooms and kitchens to find these drugs. They will be put in jail and face a big fine.

We are looking for a third category where we can have legislation instead of regulation, so it is clearly defined by Parliament. Inspectors need to have clear direction from Parliament. This is a concern of constituents in Yukon and also a concern of my constituents in Newton--North Delta.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it has always been my understanding, as a member of Parliament, that when one votes in favour of a bill at second reading, one is voting on the principles of that bill. We expect that the bill will be sent to committee where committee members can work on the details, and work on minor adjustments to the bill to make those principles work. If the amendments are substantive, then the principles are being changed.

In this case the minister has stated both inside and outside the House and at committee that natural health products were not at play in the bill. He said that nothing in this legislation would change the rules for natural health products: the availability, the choice. But I understand from members opposite that the minister now wants to put forward some amendments that would deal specifically with natural health products where they are not involved in the bill now. That is changing the principles of the bill.

I believe that it would be respectful of the House if the minister withdrew the bill, made the relevant amendments, and put the bill forward, so that all members could do an adequate study, receive advice from the Library of Parliament, receive advice from interest groups and professionals prior to our debate at second reading, and well in advance of it going to committee where we would make those moderate modifications.

Does the member not find this to be contemptuous of Parliament? Does he not find it to be disrespectful that members would abuse their privileges in this way?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had many discussions with the member for West Nova. He was very kind every time I spoke to him about my constituents' concerns. We had a very open discussion.

The question that he raises is exactly what I meant in my speech. The member for Cambridge had explicit information that we did not have and our constituents did not have. Those amendments would change the intent of the bill.

The member for West Nova said the same thing. It would be better for the minister to withdraw the bill, put the amendments into the bill, and let the bill come back to the House, so that Canadians and parliamentarians could have a real look at it. Parliamentarians could then have an open and transparent debate on the bill to bring out the truth--

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

You would not understand it, if I wrote it for you.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cambridge can grumble about whatever he wants. He has admitted that he has explicit information that other members do not have. What is wrong with us?

I would suggest that the government should withdraw the bill and note rush it through this Parliament.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The debate on Bill C-51 has now lasted for more than five hours. Accordingly, the speeches that will follow will be limited to 10 minutes.

I will give the floor first to the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes for a 10-minute speech.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise as a member of the Standing Committee on Health, and also as a consumer, to speak to Bill C-51.

The Bloc Québécois has been saying for a long time that there is a lack of surveillance over foods from countries other than Canada. We ask that importers of such products meet standards similar to the ones we have here for products manufactured in Quebec and Canada. The Bloc Québécois also wonders whether these importers should not also be subject to a number of criteria to ensure that public health is not threatened by products manufactured elsewhere.

Of course, Bill C-51 would introduce innovations such as a tracing system, a register of adverse effects especially for drugs, a recall management system, a new measure to eliminate damaging effects on public health. However, the bill also contains slightly vaguer measures that, according to the bill, would be clarified by regulations.

It is because of this vagueness that we must meet in committee with the Minister of Health, in order to find out why the bill leaves so much room for regulations. It is also important that the committee hear experts from various associations and even members of the public. Once the committee has done its work on Bill C-51, we expect the minister to be extremely open to amendments that will improve the bill.

At this point, I would like to mention a few vague provisions that will require clarification when the bill is studied in greater detail in committee. We know that Bill C-51 makes changes regarding drug advertising. Subclause 15.1(2) of the bill prohibits advertising of prescription therapeutic products. I quote:

No person shall advertise a prescription therapeutic product to a person other than a practitioner unless they are authorized by the regulations to do so.

Here, once again, the bill mentions regulations yet to come.

Nonetheless, this regulation would allow prescription drugs to be advertised. It is possible to do so under paragraph 30(1)(h).

The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this Act into effect, including regulations... respecting: (i) the labelling, packaging or advertising—or the offering or exposing for sale—of foods, therapeutic products or cosmetics.

Current legislation at least bans the advertising of prescription drugs. However, as we know, it is possible to get around the legislation. There are two choices for advertising drugs: the product can be named but not described and the ad can show people enjoying themselves living a better life, or the problem can be described but not the treatment and people can be told to consult their physician.

We know that the bill appears to be going in precisely the same direction. Consumer associations in Quebec and Canada have asked the government a number of times to plug this loophole.

Perhaps this should be cleared up in committee.

There is also the marketing and approval of drugs. Currently Health Canada is assessing the possibility of setting up a new type of drug licensing called progressive licensing. Bill C-51 includes some of the concepts involved in this progressive licensing approach. It would allow information to be collected and analyzed on an ongoing basis after the drug is marketed. It is only after the drug is marketed that a greater number of people will be exposed to it and that other important data on the drug could be established.

It is good to look at the entire life cycle of a drug to see whether it works. Quite often when clinical trials are done, the number of guinea pigs, as they could be called, is relatively limited, which sometimes prevents us from seeing in detail the possible interaction a drug may have with other drugs the patient is already taking. What is more, as Professor Carleton from British Columbia told us in committee, genetics can also come into play when assessing drugs.

However, considering this approach, we need to ask questions. Will the process be rushed? Will drugs end up on the market before they have been carefully examined? Another question we should ask is whether drugs will be put on the market before they are fully ready to be put on store shelves and in pharmacies.

Subclause 18.7(1) of the bill seems to open the door to that possibility. It states:

Subject to the regulations, the Minister may, on application, issue a market authorization to a person in respect of a therapeutic product other than a designated therapeutic product if the Minister is of the opinion that the person has established that the benefits that are associated with the therapeutic product outweigh the risks.

(2) The market authorization is deemed to be subject to the terms and conditions that are prescribed from time to time.

(3) The Minister may issue the market authorization subject to the additional terms and conditions that he or she considers appropriate.

We would like to speak to the minister to find out, for example, what are the criteria he will use to evaluate and make that decision in accordance with proposed subclause 18.7.

The bill also states that the minister will establish a register where information on adverse effects will be available. Subclause 20.8 of the bill says:

The Minister is to establish and maintain a publicly accessible register in which is to be kept the prescribed information about therapeutic products.

However, we also read in the bill that the information in the register will come only from health care institutions. No register will be set up to gather complaints from consumers or patient associations, for example. Only health care institutions will be able to contribute. What is the reason for this? It would be interesting to hear the minister's response to this as well.

This register raises another question. We currently have the MedEffect register. What will happen to it? Does this mean that this register is ineffective? Once again, it would be interesting to come back to these questions in committee.

The bill also talks about inspectors. This is important. Currently, there are many inspectors who work within the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Agri-Food performing the same duties as this bill proposes. These people play an important role in food inspection. We wonder how Bill C-51 would affect these people and if the federal government would be interfering in Quebec's jurisdiction with this bill.

There is also the question of natural health, which—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member.

We shall now proceed to questions and comments. The hon. member for West Nova.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his remarks. He is a diligent member of the health committee, and I cannot help but notice his impressive new haircut. I understand he shaved his head to raise funds in support of people with cancer. What a commendable thing to do.

I am sure he has followed this bill's progress, as have I. All the witnesses who appeared before the committee, not specifically for this bill, but to examine some of the drugs on the market and the drug approval process, generally spoke in favour of progressive licensing for drugs, which this bill specifies.

The member realizes, as I do, that many Canadians were afraid that this bill would make it more difficult to access natural health products. The minister indicated that this bill was in no way meant to target those products or change access to them in any way. It is not meant to make access any easier or any more difficult. It is not meant to change the licences to sell such products or any such matters. He said that was a completely separate issue.

Now we are told the minister intends to make a number of changes to the bill, changes that will affect these products. I think this will change the principles of this bill and I would like to ask the hon. member if he agrees with me.

We were asked to support the principles of this bill at second reading and to study it thoroughly in committee. Now, those principles are being changed. When we go back to committee, it will be with a bill that is different from the one we have been studying so far, the one we have been discussing with experts, the one on which the research branch of the Library of Parliament has been advising us. I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague from West Nova who noted my new haircut and also that it was not a moment of madness that led me to shave off all my locks, but a heartfelt gesture in support of children suffering from cancer. Together with 7,300 other participants who shaved their heads, we managed to raise $3,800,000, which will give hope to these children.

With regard to his question on natural health products, at present, there is a great deal of confusion. People are wondering whether the new regulations will contradict the Natural Health Products Regulations. It will be very important for the minister to be clear about this when the bill is studied in more detail in committee. We must allow Canadians to address the committee and we must work together to shed light on the matter and to ensure that all legislation is respected and that people are safely able to use the products they currently turn to.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member and also congratulate him on his support for children with cancer.

He went through many of the problems with the bill and mentioned many of the reasons why I, personally, do not support the legislation and why the NDP caucus is not supporting it either.

I want to raise particularly the question about natural health products and Chinese traditional medicine, which is very important to people in my riding. It is a long and distinguished tradition, maybe even longer than western medicine, yet it seems to be compromised by this legislation.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment as well on that issue and the fact that even the Conservatives now seem to realize that there are very serious flaws with this legislation, necessitating amendments at this particular stage in the process.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I must inform the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes that he has 30 seconds to comment.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to wrap it up in under 30 seconds. I already touched on this subject in answer to the question from the hon. member for West Nova.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is quite right. We must ensure that natural health products are governed by a code, a law, but we must also ensure that the bill before us does not interfere with the law in place and that all citizens will be able to use those products that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to at least begin to address the issue of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

There are very important issues raised in this legislation. It is not the first time a government in Canada in recent years has tried to change this legislation. In fact, this is about the fifth time in recent years and there has never been great success in overhauling this legislation.

It appears that the current government is facing the same kinds of problems. We now hear that even the Conservatives are proposing major amendments to their own legislation given the public outcry about it.

There are many serious problems with this legislation, things like the provision for direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. We have seen that this bill may open that door. We also know the American experience that many of us have some exposure to. We are concerned that that might increase costs to consumers. How will this affect the appropriate proscribing of drugs in Canada and how will it really contribute to the skyrocketing cost of drugs in Canada in our medical system?

There is also concern about progressive licensing and changes to the drug approval process. We have seen this aspect of our drug safety measures chipped away at over the years. In fact, the disappearance almost 10 years ago of the only drug lab that did the necessary kinds of testing, and post-market testing and surveillance is important to any drug and therapeutic product regime. That is another problem.

While we are concerned in this corner that the changes in this legislation may open the door to the kind of harmonization that is taking place under the security and prosperity partnership agenda, we are also concerned that there is too much ministerial discretion and too much regulatory discretion provided for in this legislation. We do not see that as appropriate either.

Like most members, I have heard from many--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. When we return to the study of Bill C-51, there will be eight minutes left.

We will now have statements by members under Standing Order 31. The hon. member for Lethbridge has the floor.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in opposition to Bill C-51 because it fails to address the fundamental health concerns of Canadians.

I have received overwhelming amounts of correspondence from constituents, including health practitioners, who are deeply opposed to the dangerous loopholes and ministerial power grab, which will impact the production and availability of about 60% of the natural health products, which most Canadians use to stay healthier.

As currently drafted, Bill C-51 would limit access to many health products and allow the fast-tracking of new drugs that have not been proven safe. Bill C-51 blends in with the SPP agenda, which is about harmonizing regulations across the board with the United States, resulting in lower standards. For example, the drugs Vioxx and Avandia were accelerated irresponsibly into the American market, causing the deaths of thousands.

These examples show the dangerous effects of fast-tracking drug approvals. I call on all Canadians to join us in this fight against Bill C-51, to maintain the highest standards of health, safety and accessibility.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few remarks to address in this debate. They take the form of certain questions which I would be grateful if the Minister of Health would take the opportunity to address before this debate comes to an end.

Bill C-51 amends the Food and Drugs Act to modernize the regulatory system for foods and therapeutic products, such as contact lenses, breast implants, pharmaceuticals, and so forth. The bill seeks to improve the surveillance of benefits and risks of therapeutic products through their life cycle. It is intended to improve the compliance and enforcement measures by corporations to encourage them to report adverse reactions or potential health threats associated with market products. To this end, the bill proposes to give very substantial regulatory powers to the minister. That is the type, broadly, of legislation we are dealing with in Bill C-51.

We in the Liberal Party obviously are committed, as we always have been, to improving the health and safety of Canadians and to making sure that we have an appropriate legislative framework to that end. We obviously support measures which strengthen the regulatory process to ensure that Canadians are able to have access to the safest and most effective food and therapeutic products.

However, members will have noticed as this debate has gone on that a number of problems have been brought to the attention of the House which need to be addressed. I would like to highlight a couple of those and ask the government for its considered response.

I am sure that all members of Parliament have received letters from a variety of people across the country with respect to the professional services of naturopathic doctors. The statement has been made by those who defend this legislation that the bill actually has nothing to do with that broad category of activity.

I would like to read briefly into the record one of these letters that I have received from a constituent in Regina. I would ask the minister or the parliamentary secretary to be kind enough to provide responses to the questions that this individual has raised. I will read portions of the letter as follows:

I am writing to you as one of your constituents to express my concerns about Bill C-51 and the impact it will have on the ability of my naturopathic doctor (ND) to treat my health concerns safely and effectively....

As an informed patient I have chosen to be treated by a naturopathic doctor utilizing natural therapies and substances to ensure optimal health. I would like some assurances that my choice to see a naturopathic doctor...will not be negatively impacted by Bill C-51.

I have the following questions:

1. Will Bill C-51 exclude my ND [naturopathic doctor] from having access to all the products that he/she needs to treat all my health concerns?

2. Will Bill C-51 result in fewer natural health products being available in the Canadian marketplace?

3. Will inspectors have the ability to enter premises under the search and seizure provisions without a warrant or a judge's approval?

That is the end of the bulk of the letter. I am sure the tone of that letter is familiar to many members in the House who would have received similar letters. It is important for the government to put on the record the official response to those concerns so that Canadians who have those kinds of concerns can be reassured about the impact of this legislation.

Finally, I have a suggestion to offer to the Minister of Health. It has been said in parliamentary circles in the last several days that when this bill gets to the committee stage, the government intends to bring forward what are considered to be significant amendments. We do not know if that is in fact the case, but the rumour that seems to be circulating in the Standing Committee on Health is that when Bill C-51 arrives in the committee officially, there will be significant amendments to the bill brought forward by the government itself.

That presents a problem for the House. We are now coming near the end, I suspect, of the debate at second reading and very shortly we will be called upon to vote on approval in principle of this legislation before it goes to the Standing Committee on Health for detailed consideration clause by clause. I would suggest that before the House is asked to vote at second reading on approval in principle of the bill, the House needs to know what amendments the minister has in mind. Are there amendments that are likely to be forthcoming at the committee stage? Are they significant amendments as they have been portrayed? If they are significant amendments, they may well affect the principle of the bill.

Second reading, as we all know, is approval in principle. Once we vote on approval in principle at second reading, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. It is important for the House to know exactly on what it is voting.

How can the House approve in principle Bill C-51 now if we are not told specifically what that principle is? Will that principle change? Are these amendments that the minister proposes to introduce in the committee so fundamental that they might take this bill in a new or different direction that is not contemplated by the scheme of the bill that is presently before the House?

There are two alternatives. First, before this debate comes to an end, it would be very helpful if the Minister of Health or the parliamentary secretary or someone on behalf of the government would simply inform the House now of the type of amendments the government may have in mind when the bill gets to the committee stage. They have been portrayed generally as significant, but we have not yet been told the detail.

If we are to vote on approval in principle of this bill which at a later stage is going to be amended, we are being asked now to buy a pig in a poke. I would simply ask the parliamentary secretary or the minister to tell us what the amendments are so we can make a considered judgment about Bill C-51 when we are asked to vote on it in principle at second reading.

The other alternative is if the government is not in a position to publish its amendments now or to inform the House about what those amendments might be eventually, the government could choose to simply suspend the debate at second reading. Instead of forcing the House now to vote in principle on something that may change at a subsequent date, the government could change its tactic and adopt the procedure that is set out in Standing Order 73(1), which is to send Bill C-51 to the Standing Committee on Health before the vote at second reading.

If that course of action were adopted, it would then be possible for members of Parliament to consider all dimensions of what is contained in Bill C-51, both the substance of the bill as it now exists and any proposed amendments the government might have in mind, without first having to vote on a principle, the substance of which we are not sure because it might change when it gets to the committee.

Either give us the amendments now so that we can know what the government has in mind or send the bill to committee before second reading so that members of Parliament will have more scope to change the bill if the principles contained in the amendments the government has in mind are not consistent with what the House would prefer.

Those are the points, briefly, that I wish to make on Bill C-51. They are offered in a spirit of trying to be constructive in this debate and bringing forward the concerns that people in my constituency, at least some of them, have expressed. I would ask the government if not now then at some other time in the debate to make an effort to respond to those points in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three questions of the member for Wascana are no, no and no. The bill will in no way hamper individual access to natural health products. It will in no way hamper naturopaths from doing what they do well. There will be no ability to go into someone's home without a warrant, as some have suggested.

There has been a lot of fearmongering on the bill. I want to assure the member that the government has paid very close attention to the comments that have been made by many people on the bill.

To accommodate or alleviate some of the concerns, I look forward to some amendments, but the member very well knows that parliamentary procedure is such that we have to go to second reading first before we can present the exact wording of the amendments.

The member may also know that we have had very good discussions with the health critic. We have, in general terms, agreed that this is an important bill, that some tweaking may be needed to alleviate some of the concerns.

I am pleased the health minister has listened to the people who have concerns about the bill, and we will address these concerns at committee. However, we need the cooperation of all parties, particularly the official opposition, to move forward so we can protect Canadians. The bill is about that. Only a small part of it actually deals with natural health products. The bill deals with much broader issues than just natural health products.

Has the member talked with his health critic and will he work together with the government to ensure that the safety of Canadians is protected, while people have maximum choice when it comes to natural health products?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary mentioned in his last sentence is what I am sure all members of Parliament would desire to achieve. However, we all know this old principle that the devil is in the details. Parliament is here to examine that detail to ensure we do not get stuck with the devil.

Accordingly I would ask the parliamentary secretary two further points.

He expressed great confidence about the impact, or not, of this legislation with respect to naturopathic doctors and the various remedies to which they wish to have access. The parliamentary secretary's view is there is nothing in the legislation that in any way detracts from that.

Since he is aware that a number of members of Parliament have received rather extensive representations from this sector, and I suspect the parliamentary secretary has received many himself, would he be good enough to provide to the House the written responses of the Minister of Health or the Department of Health and to put in writing the specific assurances the has given here? Those assurances are important.

For people who have questions and wonder how this legislation affects them or may have some negative impact on them, it would be of considerable reassurance if the Department of Health would be forthcoming to give a written response to Canadians who have expressed their worries in this regard, in a number of letters to members of Parliament.

Second—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member. We are now resuming debate. If the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca wants to take his seat, I will recognize him. Otherwise, my glasses will get very foggy.

If the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain ready, she has the floor.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and participate in the debate on Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

At the outset, that I will be voting against the bill at second reading. I am taking this position for a number of reasons, including the view that it may open the door to direct-to-consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals, that it gives an inordinate discretion to the minister on a number of fronts and that it may be a thinly veiled attempt to bring natural health products under the rubric of drugs.

It is particularly the latter concern that I want to focus on in the limited time I have in the debate today.

No bill in this sitting of Parliament has generated as much public interest in my riding as Bill C-51. Both producers and consumers of natural health products have expressed serious misgivings about the bill. It is no wonder that Canadians are expressing a healthy dose of skepticism about the government's agenda in bringing the bill forward.

This is the fifth attempt in just a decade by successive Liberal and Conservative governments to overhaul the Food and Drugs Act. The Liberals made four of these attempts and each time they failed. Why? They failed because each time the community spoke up.

Producers and consumers both demanded more accountability from government and wanted much clearer answers with respect to the new regulatory authority that government was assigning to itself. This time some of the same misgivings persist. Will the bill maintain regulation that is distinct from that of pharmaceuticals? Is the enforcement appropriate, with checks and balances against abuse? Is the process free from the minister's arbitrary intervention? These concerns are legitimate and must be addressed by the government.

The NDP has always believed that natural health products are a fundamental element in disease prevention and treatment. They are an element with distinct characteristics that distinguish it from both food and drugs, a distinction that merits a separate regulatory framework in ensuring its safety and efficacy. This is the position that I continue to advocate as we scrutinize Bill C-51.

My constituents in Mountain have said loud and clear that the bill, as it stands now, is unacceptable. Significant and necessary changes cannot and will not be made before the second reading. Therefore, the bill will not have my vote or I believe the votes of any of my NDP colleagues at second reading. Furthermore, I cannot accept a bill that undermines Canadians access to safe, reliable natural health products and one that favours multinational corporate drug interests.

To be fair to the government, there is a misperception that Bill C-51 would require consumers to get a prescription to access natural health products. I have studied the bill closely and I do not believe that is the case. Bill C-51 would not affect prescribing requirements.

The public's concern about this aspect speaks volumes about the unease that this legislation is creating about the government's true intent with respect to natural health products and it speaks volumes about the need for the government to clarify its intentions so there is no room for doubt with respect to any of the sections that apply to natural health products.

Proper consultations may have been able to alleviate some of those concerns, but those consultations did not happen. That is why there is such a huge disconnect between the government's rhetoric on the purported intent of the bill and the community's understanding of what is really at stake.

At a cursory level, the provisions of the bill purport to enhance consumer and product safety protections, a goal which we all share. In fact, as hundreds of emails and letters from people in my riding of Hamilton Mountain made clear, they simply want to ensure and I quote “that natural health products are treated fairly”.

In fact, allow me to share with members of the House a lengthier quote from correspondence that I have received from one of my constituents, whose sentiment is shared by literally dozens of others. The constituent writes:

I am writing you to express my growing concern about the impact of Bill C-51.

This proposed new law has major ramifications for the natural health products I depend on. I am very worried about potential impact this bill could have on the future of natural health products. Bill C-51 restricts the choices Canadian people have when it comes to their health.

As my Member of Parliament, I need your help in ensuring that natural health products are treated fairly. What is needed is a legislative framework that treats natural health products as a third category for Health Canada. This is something promised by previous Ministers of Health but never delivered.

Please review Bill C-51 and fight to make sure natural health products are not eliminated as a viable consumer choice in Canada. Did you know that more than 70% of the Canadian population uses natural health products? This bill opposes the desires of most Canadians and restricts our freedom of choice.

Members will have noticed that the concerns expressed by these constituents are entirely reasonable. My constituents are simply asking that natural health products be treated fairly. Their concerns are measured, balanced and they deserve to be resolved, but the only way to have them resolved is through dialogue and meaningful consultations. However, here we are in the last few days of the session before the House rises for the summer and the government is trying to rush the bill through to a vote. Why not slow things down?

This chamber is supposed to deliberate on legislation that is brought here by the government. Deliberation suggests thoughtful debate, with give and take in shaping the final product. That means that we need to have enough time to hear the concerns of our constituents, reflect on them and give voice to them in the House. That is what representation is all about. Yet with the government's rushed timetable, I am one of the few MPs who will get an opportunity to represent my constituents here.

Thankfully, natural health product consumers in my riding are well informed and know that they can get in touch with me any time if they have concerns about what happens in the House of Commons. And they have. However, thousands of other Canadians share their concerns and their members of Parliament either cannot or will not represent them in this chamber. That is a bitter pill to swallow.

If the government is so certain that Bill C-51 is benign, why would it not allow all interested parties to participate in the careful scrutiny of this bill? The mere fact that the government is unwilling to engage in this kind of dialogue just serves to increase further the concerns in the community.

I have already said that not all provisions of the bill are flawed. It deals with a broad range of issues, aside from natural health products. In many respects, the government has moved a significant distance from the days of the Liberals. However, that does not change the fact that the bill still has many problems.

Greater consultation might have been able to resolve these problems and allay community fears, but because that input was not sought and because of the potentially dangerous ramifications and provisions of the bill, I now have no choice but to oppose the legislation as tabled. Yes, I am voting that way because of the concerns around natural health products. I am also doing it because I have serious concerns about advertising, adverse reactions and life cycle licensing. Above all, I am concerned that the bill, as a whole, is premised on the Conservatives' risk management approach to safety rather than the do no harm principle.

For all of those reasons, I will be voting against Bill C-51 in the upcoming vote. I am happy to do so on behalf of my constituents of Hamilton Mountain. Their concerns will be represented in the House. I just hope the members of the other parties will do the same so, together, we can go back to the drawing board.

The government has already signalled that it will need to introduce numerous amendments to fix the bill. In other words, it agrees that the current bill, as drafted, is flawed. Therefore, let us do the right thing. Let us vote it down at second reading, allow the health committee to do full public consultations and then introduce a new bill that addresses the concerns of hard-working Canadians. Our constituents deserve nothing less.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's statement intently and many points are not accurate.

First, the government has consulted widely before the drafting of the bill and during the drafting of the bill. Since the bill has been introduced, consultations have taken place right across the country from coast to coast to coast, and there continues to be consultation on the bill.

The member said that the bill should be defeated and not brought to the health committee. The whole point of having a second reading is to go to the health committee so we can hear from stakeholders from coast to coast to coast. That is the parliamentary procedure. That is the process and it has suited our country, by and large, very well.

I ask the member to reconsider her position, given the new information, which she is apparently unaware, that there has been very broad consultation. The minister has been listening. There is an opportunity, after second reading, to bring amendments forward. I also point out that natural health products are not considered drugs under the current legislation, and it will be made crystal clear after the amendment.

Therefore, with that information, will the member please be reasonable and help the government to ensure maximum access to natural health products and to ensure health and safety of Canadians?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have never been accused in the House of being anything other than reasonable, and I certainly want to continue that tradition now.

I have no doubt that the government consulted on this legislation. I just doubt the breadth of that consultation, because I have had the privilege of sitting in the health committee and I know that most of the presentations that I have heard about, albeit second hand, were consultations with big pharma. That is not who I am talking about needing to consult.

We need to talk to the consumers of natural health products in our communities. Those are the people who are flooding our offices with mail each and every day suggesting that they actually do not feel that they have been adequately heard. Yes, by all means, let us do the consultations, but let us do them right and let us not be selective in terms of whom we listen to.

The parliamentary secretary suggested that this bill does not need to be defeated because the government is going to bring in a ton of amendments that will allay all my fears. In typical government fashion, the member is suggesting that I should just trust him on that. If the government already knows that it needs to bring in substantial and substantive amendments to the bill to allay fears, then the government itself is admitting that the bill as it is currently before us is flawed. The vote at second reading is a vote on the principle of this bill. You are asking me to support the principles of a bill that the government says is flawed. I for one am not prepared to do that.

Indeed, the member said the serious concern that natural health products consumers have about those products not being considered drugs would be dealt with in the amendments to this bill. I am not willing to take the government at its word. I am willing to accept that the government has now seen that its current legislation before us is flawed, so I would happy if it withdrew the bill, introduced one with all of the amendments already in place so we could then have a vote on second reading of a bill that is in the form the government wants to see it. We could then make a considered decision on second reading.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain will be happy to know that I do not want to tell her how to vote either way.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-51. All of us in the House have received a lot of correspondence from very concerned Canadians. They believe that the bill will impede their access to substances that they have freely bought over the counter for many years, products that are used by naturopaths and herbalists across our country and products that are used by first nations healers in Canada. Those groups are concerned.

The government has done a very poor job of describing what the bill is about. That the government will be putting forth amendments which it is not willing to share with us speaks to the fact that it is proceeding in a way that is less than organized with respect to the bill. The government is hearing about it from Canadians and from members of the House of Commons.

The crux of the concerns of most Canadians is whether the bill impedes a person's ability to access those products. The bill touches on a lot of things that are very important. It covers many substances. It covers pharmaceutical products and medical equipment. It enables the minister to more rapidly assess whether a product is good or bad for the public. It enables him to remove products more quickly.

Right now product removal is voluntary in nature and it is up to the private sector companies to remove them. The bill would give Health Canada the ability to better monitor products that come on the market and to remove them if there are problems that are identified. In fact, the Food and Drugs Act, which this bill amends, has not to my knowledge been significantly amended since 1953. Obviously we need to do a better job of that.

Penelope Marrett, president of the Toronto based Canadian Health Food Association, said:

People need to remember that we're an already regulated industry....Herbalists and naturopaths will still be able to provide the products and the compounds that they do under the current situation.

I hope that allays some concerns. However, the proof of the pudding is in the bill. We want to make sure that the bill goes to committee, which is the next stage after this one, and that members on the health committee have ample time to dissect the bill from stem to stern. Members of the naturopathic groups in Canada, the aboriginal groups and other groups that are concerned will be able to appear as witnesses in front of the health committee. We are hoping this will happen in a very public fashion. I hope that the government sees fit to televise the hearings of this investigation. It is very important for all Canadians to witness the people who come in front of the committee so that all sides can be heard. I know that the concerns of Canadians about the bill will be expressed in that committee and will be heard and understood.

If the bill compromises the ability of Canadians to access the naturopathic products that are safe and to which they have traditionally had access, then we will not support the bill. We will not compromise people's ability to access these products, but we are obviously in favour of ensuring that whatever products come down the line are safe for Canadians.

I would ask why on earth the government has not taken it upon itself to deal with what is arguably one of the two most important issues affecting Canadians, and that is health care in Canada. The government has been missing in action. Why have we not seen a plan to deal with the health care human resources catastrophe that we will be facing in the coming years? Physicians, specialists and general practitioners, nurses, technicians and other health care workers, there is a huge aging out of the population taking place. The average age of many physicians and specialist groups is in the fifties and for nurses it is in the low forties. This is a problem that cannot be rectified overnight. The government has not done anything about this. It has to work with the provinces.

Here is one easy solution. There are some 1,800 Canadian students who could not get into medical school in Canada who are studying abroad in places like Australia. Those Canadians would dearly love to come back to this country, but it is exceedingly difficult for Canadians working abroad to come back. They even have to write a test to determine whether or not they can speak English or French. Can anyone believe that?

The system makes it very difficult for Canadians abroad to come back. Why do we not make it easier? Why do we not enable Canadians to be quickly assessed and to either have extra training or be allowed to practice in Canada if they are Canadians who are studying abroad? That would potentially introduce 1,800 doctors into Canada in a very short period of time at a very low cost.

Where is the government on other issues? Where is it on home care? This is a serious issue given our aging population. Where is it on a national mental health care strategy? The government is moving slowly in that direction. It is a positive direction and we continue to encourage that. Where is it on modernizing the Canada Health Act? There is silence from the government.

Where is it on information technology? This is something that could radically and dramatically improve our ability to care for our patients. Where is it on the head start program for children? That was passed in the House in 1998. It would be the simplest, least expensive and most effective preventive measure we could possibly have in our country.

Where is the government on research and development? Where is the government on its science and technology strategy? I can say where it is. The government's science and technology strategy is to fire the science adviser to the Prime Minister and eliminate his office. Firing Dr. Arthur Carty, one of Canada's finest scientists, and eliminating the post of science adviser to the Prime Minister is the government's science and technology strategy. What kind of strategy is that?

What is the government doing to facilitate the connection between bench discoveries and putting them into clinical practice? Where is its ability to move forward on the scientific discoveries that we have and commercialize them? Why is it not connecting up groups like the MaRS centre in Toronto and the 27 science and technology parks from coast to coast in our country? Why is it not working with them to connect them and maximize their possibilities. That is the future economic ability of our country to compete.

China and India are building dozens and dozens of these parks. They know that the future does not lie in petrodollars. The future does not lie in resource extraction. The future lies in our ability to maximize technological advances in science and research and to commercialize an operationalize them.

Our fine scientists are some of the best in the world, but they are being left to drift by the government. There is no plan whatsoever from the government. Why? Because in part everything is controlled by the Prime Minister's office and it chooses to deal with only a few things.

I would strongly advise the government that there are members in the Liberal Party who would very much like to work with the government to advance ideas and solutions to enable Canadians, particularly those who are sick, to access the care they require.

Most Canadians would be fascinated to know that with respect to modernizing our health care system in Canada, it is not a binary question. It is not our system or the U.S. system. What about all those systems in Europe where for a lower price and less cost there are better health care outcomes? There are no, or small, waiting lines. There is better access to new technologies.

Canadians would be interested to know that we fall somewhere in the lower third of OECD countries in our ability to access modern technologies. Technologies and medicine are out there. Can Canadians get them? No. Why is the government not working with the provinces to look at best practices in Europe and bring them here to Canada?

Why do we not have a centre for best health care practices in our country? This is something for which I have been calling for a few years. The government could organize a centre for best health care practices, take the best ideas from around the world, bring them here to Canada and push those out.

One particular area that is important to my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, as it is to the country, is the health care of our Canadian Forces members and their families. They are suffering in silence, in part because of the situation in Afghanistan. We could set up a centre of excellence for health care for our Canadian Forces members and their families. In doing so, we would be more effective in addressing PTSD, preventing PTSD, dealing with the anxiety issues and psychological problems and other physical problems they have.

We look forward to having a strong debate in committee regarding Bill C-51.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

We will now have questions and comments.

I have noted in this cycle that the questions are very long. When the question takes more than half the time of the question and comment period, then the answer does not have equal time. So, we will try to at least respect that.

I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Health.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, in this circumstance, the question is sometimes more important than the answer.

I am a little disappointed that the member did not use his full time to talk about the issue at hand, which is Bill C-51. The member talked about the doctor shortage, and I will just address that for a moment.

The doctor shortage is due to cutbacks in the mid-1990s, when the brain trusts of the governing party, the Liberal Party at the time, thought it would be a good idea to reduce the number of family doctors graduating from medical schools. So, we now have, 10 years later, not surprisingly, a doctor shortage.

We have an immigration bill that will allow the fast-tracking of medical professionals, which the opposition party railed against, but yet let pass, very hypocritically. It will address the medical crisis that the Liberal Party initiated and now we, as Conservatives, have to do what we always do; that is, clean up after the Liberals.

With regard to Bill C-51, the member, I think, being a doctor, understands the importance of natural health products. I am pleased to see that he is willing to let it go to committee where the appropriate amendments can be brought forward and so on.

I wonder if the member would agree with the government that the health and safety of Canadians needs to be balanced with the ability of Canadians to have the freedom of choice in dealing with their care needs?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will just correct my hon. friend, the hon. parliamentary, on a couple of points. I do not want to use up all my time on that, but I was speaking about a national health care workforce strategy, yes, for physicians, but also for nurses and technicians, and other health care professionals. There is an age-out occurring in all of those areas.

When we were in government, my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, put forth with the then prime minister a plan to bring in a $50-million plan to facilitate many new physicians who were here into the workforce, which was accomplished.

We are asking for governments to work with other health care professional groups to deal with a national workforce health care plan.

On the issue of the right to access and the public good, governments have a right and an obligation to ensure that products that are on the market are not going to be harmful.

There is an interesting thought that just because something is “natural”, it is in fact safe. The reality is that many of the drugs that we receive as prescriptions have natural products as their root. Digoxin, digitalis, which is a cardiac drug, comes from a plant. The narcotic family, which is codeine and other more powerful narcotics, also comes from plant products. There are many other products that come from plant products.

The job of Health Canada is to act as a guardian in the public interest. But there is a balance. That is what we want to make sure, that when this bill goes to committee that that balance will be struck and that Canadians will have access to safe products, there will be proper oversight on the part of the Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada, and also that the government will have the power to remove those substances that are injurious to the public.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to get something on the record quickly. I want to ensure that Empowerplus is still available after this bill goes through and the supplements that help bipolar disease. There also has to be sufficient consultation with first nations to ensure that a protection exists in their land claim or self-government agreements to deal with natural medicines.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will put another challenge forward. What would be very opportune for the government is to work with scientists to investigate the medicinal properties of naturopathic substances, do the tests on them to determine what works and what does not work for the particular health care problems they are supposed to be utilized for.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to follow my colleague from Winnipeg North on Bill C-51. She has been very eloquent on this bill and has been, I think, by far the best speaker thus far in terms of exposing what really seems to be at work here regarding the agenda that the government has put forward. I am pleased to speak in opposition to Bill C-51.

As with a number of other initiatives from this Conservative government, what it says it is trying to do is quite different from what it actually tries to do when it is seen in legislation. We have seen this time and time again, that essentially what the Conservatives try to use is a smokescreen, political spin. It takes scrutiny, particularly from the NDP corner of the House, to scrutinize very carefully the actual legislation to find out what indeed is the intent of the Conservative government.

Here again is a case where the Conservatives announced, with a great deal of political spin and marketing, that somehow they were trying to add to safety in our health care system with health care products and pharmaceutical drugs.

But the devil is in the details. When we carefully read through this bill, as our health critic the member for Winnipeg North has done and other members of the NDP caucus, we find the intent is quite different than the actual wording of the bill itself.

I would like to touch on two of the most egregious aspects of what is contained within Bill C-51, which essentially, in a very bizarre way, is an attempt to push a very strict regime around natural health products and at the same time, there appears to be an attempt to lessen any sort of regulatory oversight around pharmaceutical drugs.

On natural health products, we have seen over the past few years a growing waiting list for approval of natural health products in Canada. A little bit like the immigration system and a little bit like our health care system, that is the result of both successive Liberal and Conservative governments essentially giving away the public management and the public trust that Canadians have entrusted to Parliament.

What we have seen over the past 20 years is very much a right wing agenda that puts the emphasis on corporate tax cuts above all other things. The result of that is underfunding of our health care system. The result of that is underfunding of our immigration system and the result of that as well is underfunding of the approval process to actually ensure that natural health products are not subject to these long wait lists.

The solution the Conservatives offer up is to simply lump in pharmaceutical drugs with natural health products. I have received far more letters and emails from my constituents in Burnaby—New Westminster on this issue than I have on practically any other. I am going to read into the record a few of the comments that my constituents in Burnaby--New Westminster have written to me on this particular issue.

Mr. Thuot writes: “We all recognize that the pharmaceutical industry has been waging a relentless war internationally on vitamin and alternative natural health supplements for quite some time”.

We have Dr. Chan from Burnaby who writes: “I definitely do not support legislation that treats natural health products in the same manner as pharmaceutical products. Now would be an excellent time for the government to implement a third category for natural health products as was recommended by the Standing Committee on Health in 1998”.

We have Mr. Johrden in New Westminster who writes: “I am opposed to Bill C-51 which has been set in motion to amend the Food and Drugs Act, a bill with worrisome implications for the natural health products industry and consumers”.

We have Ms. Balabanov who writes: “Vitamins and minerals are very important for health and prevention. They cause no deaths as opposed to pharmaceutical drugs that do cause many deaths”.

We have Ms. Lum from Burnaby who writes: “I dare say the only industry being helped will be the pharmaceutical industry who can rake in even more profits once all health foods have been banned or made into prescription drugs”.

We have Mr. Hollenstein from New Westminster who says: “I do not wish this manipulation of the term therapeutic drugs to be an umbrella for all pharmaceutical drugs, to include vitamins and herbal remedies and food in general”.

We have Mr. Robertson who writes, referring to me as his member of Parliament. He said: “I ask you to take a strong stand on this and I for one would like to state that I am vehemently opposed to the passing of such a bill”.

Ms. Bredburn from Burnaby writes: “I am a woman who has greatly benefited by natural health products after years and years of unsuccessful mainstream doctor prescribed drugs”.

The constituents in Burnaby and New Westminster have written time and time again about this foolhardy notion that the solution to the waiting list, that has been caused by government underfunding, will actually ensure that the system works effectively and that new natural food products that are brought on the market will be subject to the appropriate scrutiny and then brought on to the market.

Instead of providing the adequate funding, in a bizarre world that only Picasso could have imagined, we have the Conservatives making the situation worse. However, there is another element to Bill C-51 that I would like to address.

As the government seems to be putting the thumbs to the natural food products industry and most Canadians who rely on herbal remedies and natural food products to maintain their health and well-being, we are seeing, at the same time, an American style approach to the approval of pharmaceutical drugs. What sense is that when in the United States we have seen huge problems with its fast tracking of approval of pharmaceutical drugs?

Progressive licensing simply ensures that drugs are brought onto the market without appropriate scrutiny. We have seen this from other Conservative initiatives in transportation, where it wants to hand over safety management to the airlines themselves. It did not work for railways, as we saw an escalating accident rate, but the government wants to try it for airlines. This type of approach simply does not make sense.

We have seen in the United States drug after drug after drug that has provoked deaths because it was fast tracked. We know that the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, in these behind closed doors negotiations, the so-called security and prosperity partnership, are trying to harmonize all of our regulations, standards and safety protections that we put into place to lower American standards.

We saw that with transportation safety. We have seen it with the attempt by the Conservative government to raise the pesticide residue permitted in Canadian food. We see this through the SPP process that essentially copying what has not worked in the United States is not in the interests of Canadians.

I would like to read a couple of excerpts from news articles that came out last year around this issue of progressive licensing and how it worked in the United States. I will read a couple of paragraphs from the Washington Post:

Three drugs--Vioxx, Ketek and Avandia--are casting long shadows over the congressional debate on how to update and revise the 15-year-old system that has dramatically sped up the process of bringing prescription medicines to American consumers. All three ran into problems after the Food and Drug Administration approved them for use. The problems ranged from thousands of heart attacks partly attributable to the painkiller Vioxx to a few cases of liver failure caused by the antibiotic Ketek. And the hazards of the diabetes drug Avandia are only now emerging.

The New England Journal of Medicine did a study around cases of these fast tracked drugs, such as the Conservatives are proposing, and these are the comments that came out of that study:

It is incredible that the Agency charged with protecting the public health has such a poor record when it comes to post market drug safety. Regrettably it is incidents like this that demand legislative changes in the way FDA deals with drug safety.

That particular study indicated that 56,000 Americans died as a result of drugs being fast tracked onto the market. This is the danger with this kind of foolhardy Conservative initiative that may mesh with its right wing ideology that government and safety is bad, let us do away with all of that, and let the company CEOs decide what degree of safety or risk Canadians should have.

Very clearly, all the emails and letters that have come from my constituents say the contrary. Canadians believe the government should ensure a higher standard of safety, a more secure process of approving pharmaceutical drugs.

Bill C-51, the thin edge of the wedge, does exactly the opposite, moving toward a kind of progressive licensing, the fast tracking of drugs that did not work in the United States. That is why in this corner of the House we are saying no to Bill C-51.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kenora, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Labrador, National Defence; the hon. member for Windsor West, Infrastructure.

Questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Health.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard stories about the loony left and what we have seen and heard here is an example of seeing shadows where there are not any. The fact is the government is looking to bring forward regulations to protect Canadians. I thought NDP members would be in favour of that but they are not. They feel that there is some sort of conspiracy with big pharmaceutical companies and that somehow this legislation will fast track pharmaceuticals, which is absolutely false.

This legislation deals with the life cycle approach of products. I wonder if the member understands what he is talking about. Can he explain his understanding of the life cycle approach to Parliament?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is betraying the Conservative approach on health care. Rather than addressing any of the concerns that have been raised by the thousands of Canadians who have written to his office, as they have to every other member of Parliament here, he denigrates them. He attacks them, he insults them and he calls them names. That is exactly the Conservative approach. It is a kind of thuggish approach on health care.

To put it quite simply, the Conservatives have not made the case for Bill C-51. Quite simply, when we look at the American style of approach that they are attempting to use through Bill C-51, the evidence is there in the United States from The New England Journal of Medicine, which he is calling loony leftist. The New England Journal of Medicine has a lot more credibility than the hon. member does when it comes to health care issues.

When The New England Journal of Medicine says that 56,000 person-years were “lost to the harmful effects of drugs approved but later withdrawn for safety reasons” because of fast-tracking of pharmaceutical drugs in the United States, one would expect that the Conservatives, in the public interest, would actually say, “Hold on, let us take a step back on this. We have put together this legislation. Obviously there are some negative impacts on this legislation so we are going to have to--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for putting input from his constituents on the record. I want to do the same.

I want to ensure that the supplements for people with bipolar syndrome are still available for them. I have some constituents who need them.

Also, in this process, there has to be consultation with first nations, especially those who have in their land claims and self-governance agreements the right to distribute these products.

Finally, this last comment is from a retailer, who says:

Many Canadians rely on natural health products for their health. These products are endangered and consumers need to act now to save them.

Since 2004 when the Natural Health Product Regulations were introduced, natural health products have been increasingly threatened. The new Regulations were Health Canada's response to consumer demands for the government to protect their access to natural health products. The Regulations have had the opposite effect. To “legally” sell a health product the new Regulations impose a licensing requirement. The problem is that 60% of the licence applications have failed. These have been the “easy” applications. Expectations are that 70-75% of applications will fail. For the [Natural Health Products] Community this means that 75% of [natural health products] we rely upon for our health will become illegal.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to finish my answer to the parliamentary secretary. The government itself is acknowledging the fact that it screwed up on this bill because it is now bringing in amendments to its own bill.

As for what the parliamentary secretary said in a very denigrating way about Canadians generally who have concerns about this bill and about leftist publications like The New England Journal of Medicine, my goodness, if that is a leftist publication, then I think we are dealing with a completely different planet that the Conservatives live on.

These concerns are legitimate. The government has acknowledged that by bringing in amendments in a desperate attempt to try to correct the mistakes it has made in this bill.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

First and foremost, as vice-chair of the health committee, I would like to say that we have looked at some of these issues and it is a pleasure to see the parliamentary secretary here to support this bill and to debate it.

First, the bill looks at modernizing the regulatory system. What does that mean? It means that because the act was introduced in 1953 and is a little bit older than I am, we can see that it needs some improvement, just as I do on a regular basis.

Second, it looks to improve the surveillance of benefits and risks of therapeutic products throughout their life cycles. At the committee, we have been looking at licensing or surveillance of medication.

At this time, what happens with medication is that some pre-market tests are done, but we all understand that pre-market tests cannot be done on young children or on elderly people, pregnant women and so on. At the same time, when products are introduced into the market, they are taken by those people as well, so we have been doing a study on post-market surveillance to see what can be done and how to improve the system of post-market surveillance.

The post-market surveillance assessment will be done soon and I believe the report should be hitting the House either this week or next week, hopefully before we rise. The report will have some recommendations about which I am not at liberty to speak at this time.

The other issue this bill looks at is improved compliance in reporting adverse reactions. As for adverse reactions when someone takes a medication, the medication is either reported back to their doctor or not reported at all. So far, our information tells us that only 10% of adverse reactions are reported.

We have been wondering about that. We have been consulting with stakeholders from across the country, the people who really do this work, such as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian pharmaceutical associations, the Canadian Nurses Association and so on. We will be coming up with some recommendations on those issues before the House rises, but what is important is that the issue of human resources for health professionals is not being dealt with.

When the Minister of Health appeared in front of the committee, we asked if he was aware of how many Canadians did not have a doctor, a health professional. At that time, which was about three months ago, he was not aware. Further, when we asked if he was aware of what the doctor shortages were in Canada, he was unaware. The third question was the clincher and that was about whether he had a plan. He obviously had a plan, but having a plan for improving the situation of health care professionals in Canada and not being aware of the first two questions begs the question of how he could be fixing a problem without being aware that it exists.

The minister came up very short in front of the committee. I was very surprised when he did not know that three million to five million Canadians do not have a doctor and that in Canada there is a doctor shortage of about 26,000 physicians. They were needed yesterday, not tomorrow, not next year, not 10 years from now, but yesterday.

Because the minister said he had a plan, we asked him what his plans were in the health department to fix the human resources situation. He told us that residency spots in Ontario were available. When we asked how many, he said they had been increased by roughly 100.

I was born in a very small village and my math may not be so good, but when three to five million Canadians do not have a physician and we are told that 24,000 to 26,000 physicians are needed to make sure that Canadians are looked after, it does not take a genius to figure out that we need an aggressive plan for human resources in the health care system. The minister's aggressive plan was to increase the number of residency spots in Ontario by 100.

Twenty-six thousand doctors are needed, yet we are increasing that number by only 100. It will take a zillion years, let me note for the parliamentary secretary, to solve this huge problem. It is a problem in the beautiful riding of Oak Ridges--Markham, the largest riding in Canada when it comes to eligible voters. We need more health care professionals in our riding.

I would like to go back to Bill C-51 and put on the record a number of emails that I have received from people in my riding.

Linda wrote to me and said:

If I prepare apple cider vinegar steeped with a few herbs like sage and lemon balm in my garden for a general winter tonic to ward off flu or colds, or to give in case of sore throat, I could find myself in jail if I give this to my children or husband or give a jar to my neighbour or a friend. Or if I make some skin cream for my son's eczyma from beeswax from some herbs growing in my garden I could be thrown in jail....

She went on to say:

I don't trust Health Canada to keep my family safe. I don't trust the health minister to keep my family safe...

If this bill does pass, and I pray it does not, I will be contacting you and your colleagues....

Another email is from Angela, who says:

I wanted to write to you to see if there is anything you can do to help out with Bill C-51, which the government is trying to pass as law. If passed, Bill C-51 will ban our access to all vitamins, herbs and alternative therapies.

I would like to read a couple more, with the House's indulgence. The next email is from Rosie, who says:

You might remember chatting with Jeff and myself...a few weeks ago...I am writing to protest the passing of Bill C-51 in its current version.

She says that we should take it out of here, pass it on to the committee and have a look at it at committee. That is a great idea. That is what our party is suggesting.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will finish with an email from Marjorie, one of the many that we have received. She says:

By now, many people in the Natural Health Product (NHP) community are pulling their hair out over Bill C-51, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

I end my speech with that.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member is very able in his capacity as vice-chair of the committee. I look forward to working with him in committee on Bill C-51.

With respect to the issue of the physicians, I would like to remind the member that it was under the previous government that positions were cut and $25 billion was removed from the transfers to the provinces. We are dealing with it now and we are dealing with it well. The minister has done a remarkable job in attracting new professionals through working with colleges.

As well, just last night we passed an immigration bill that will fast track health care professionals such as doctors, nurses, physiotherapists and the like. We are making substantial progress.

On the issue of Bill C-51, we have heard from the NDP accusations that are not correct. I wonder if the member, as vice-chair of the committee, could explain how the committee process works. The fact is that once we go through second reading the committee will have the opportunity to amend the legislation, listen to witnesses and so on. It also gives the government the opportunity to incorporate into the bill suggestions that it has heard from across the country, because of course the government is listening to Canadians. Can the member explain the process a little?

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the process, but I will mention a couple of things with regard to the doctor shortages.

The immigration bill has passed, without our support. If the parliamentary secretary is thinking the bill will solve the problems he has as the parliamentary secretary, and Canadians endure, he is dreaming in Technicolor.

In terms of the process, it is such that we will now move the bill to the committee and the committee will do an intensive study. We will hear from the brightest minds and most of the shareholders who are involved with the bill. We have looked at our agenda and we will bring Bill C-51 to the committee's agenda upon our return in the fall. At that time, we will discuss and hear witnesses from across the country. If people are watching and would like to be witnesses, they should get in touch with our clerk and she will ensure they are added to the list of witnesses. We like to hear from everyone.

This morning my assistant opened over 100 envelopes with the same message inside. The names of different people were added on to the letter of request or comments that people had made. Therefore, I believe there is a movement, in terms of Bill C-51, looking to stop the bill dead in its tracks right now.

However, we will send it committee, work on it and come up, hopefully, with an improved plan than the one with which the parliamentary secretary gave us to work, which is not enough.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-51. We know the overhaul of the Food and Drugs Act in Canada has been years in the making and successive governments have attempted and failed. Canadians rely on their government to ensure safety standards are in place to protect their food, drugs and the natural health products they might want to take.

Over many years, we have seen far too many scares. There have been some serious consequences. Drugs and other products have ended up on the market and the health of Canadians has suffered. We certainly can point to Thalidomide as one of those drugs, as is Vioxx. Silicone gel breast implants had consequences that people did not anticipate.

It is very important that a legislative and regulatory process be in place to protect the health and welfare of Canadians. However, we do not see Bill C-51 as being that legislation. Although some aspects of the bill have merit, other aspects of the bill warrant additional attention. Because I only have 10 minutes to talk about this, I will talk only about a couple of aspects of it.

Before I get into this, governments in the past have made the lives of scientists very difficult. We only have to turn to the BSE crisis. Scientists were fired under the previous Liberal government for highlighting the problems with BSE. The case went on for years for those scientists who dared stand up and talk about the fact that some of the products in Canada simply were not safe. We also want to ensure there is adequate protection for employees who dare to blow the whistle on current government practice that affect the health and welfare of Canadians.

The couple of pieces I want to touch on are progressive licensing and direct-to-consumer advertising in the natural health products. I also want to highlight the fact that first nations traditional healers are not protected under the bill. Many of the first nations traditional healers have sacred medicines, which they have used for centuries. However, because they are sacred, they also are not in the public domain in the way that other products are. There needs to be a way to ensure first nations traditional healers are not impacted by the bill as well.

Under the progressive licensing aspect of it, one of the things the bill talks about is setting up an ongoing life cycle approach to drug safety. However, it does not have the needed improvements for pre-market testing and there will be heavy reliance on industry-led post-market follow-up. One of the things we want to see is improved pre-market safety. Any post-market oversight must be done independently. If we turn it strictly over to industry, it is like the fox in the henhouse. Any oversight must be done at arm's length so industry is held accountable both for its pre-market and post-market testing.

In the past we have called for a system to record adverse reactions. I know there has been some movement on recording adverse reactions, but more work needs to be done in this area as well. Largely one of the ways post-market problems show up is in adverse reaction. There needs to be much more work done on ensuring there is a national system in place to look at adverse reaction.

I want to touch on direct-to-consumer advertising. This is a very small piece in the bill, but it opens the doors to look at banning the current act's straightforward ban on direct-to-consumer advertising for health conditions, as outlined in a schedule in the act. The way the new legislation is written this prohibition could be exempted through regulation. This would allow pharmaceutical companies, with an order in cabinet, to bypass the regulations that are in place.

I want to turn to an article that was written by Barbara Mintzes called “Disease Mongering in Drug Promotion: Do Governments Have a Regulatory Role?”. It is an extensive article, so I will not have time to read the whole thing, but I want to touch on two pieces. She starts the article by saying:

Ray Moynihan and colleagues describe disease mongering as, “widening the boundaries of treatable illness in order to expand markets for those who sell and deliver treatments”. In this article, I examine one aspect of disease mongering: activities financed by drug companies to promote sales by expanding the pool of patients potentially treated by their products, when no benefit in terms of reduced morbidity is likely.

Then she goes on and talks about the fact that often these are very emotional responses and cites a couple of ads from pharmaceutical companies that say if people do not take their produce, they will end up dead. That is kind of the short form on it. That kind of fearmongering to encourage patients to use a particular pharmaceutical company's product is not the most reasonable way to make decisions on particular treatments.

In her conclusion, she says “Is a More Robust Regulatory Response Needed?”

She says:

The rationale for regulation of drug promotion is health protection, encouragement of appropriate medicine use, and prevention of deceptive advertising.

She goes on to say:

Canada's Food and Drugs Act prohibits advertising a drug that is “false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, merit or safety”.

I think many Canadians would be very uncomfortable with anything that would allow pharmaceutical companies to do more direct-to-consumer advertising than they already do. There is a way they can circumvent the regulations currently, and many Canadians are very uncomfortable with that. We are strongly opposed to anything that would open up the door to allow that to happen. We are opposed to that one aspect of the bill.

I know other members in the House have talked about the hundreds of letters they have received from their constituents, and certainly Nanaimo—Cowichan is no different, around the concerns about how this may impact on their ability to use natural health products. People in Nanaimo—Cowichan like the option of being able to access natural health products without facing some of the same costs involved with pharmaceuticals. They like to have that access through their local health food store. Many are raising concerns around whether this will impact on their access.

The Canadian Health Food Association has written a letter to the Minister of Health, on June 9, outlining many of its concerns around the natural health products aspects of the bill. I will touch on a few of them, but the association has quite accurately outlines.

The association talks about the fact that in the preamble to the bill there is no identification of the importance of health promotion or disease prevention. We know health promotion and disease prevention are very important aspects. If we want to talk about impact on our health care dollars being spent, we know health promotion and disease prevention need far more emphasis than they current get.

The association talks about categories, that the proposed amendments to the act include a new term called “therapeutic product” under which NHPs, as a subset of drugs, fall. It says, “The term “NHPs” does not appear anywhere in C-51 until page 40 when transition provisions are discussed.

It talks about authorization and licensing, that the applicant is required to establish that the risks of the product are outweighed by the benefits. Its comment on that is:

There is nothing in the Bill that indicates in what manner the applicant is to satisfy the risk-benefit ratio. No parameters or definitions have been included, that recognize the inherent differences between NHPs and pharmaceuticals, in particular new drugs.

It goes on, as well, to talk about the fact that, in many cases, the minister would have far more powers through the regulatory process and that it would not be an open and transparent process.

The association's brief to the minister talks about the fact that there needs to be accountability, openness and transparency around how decisions are made, that we do not need a regulatory process. In fact, we know that most regulations do not need to come to the House of Commons for approval.

We have heard the Conservatives say, “trust us”, that the regulatory will be in place to ensure that everything will lineup the way the bill says it will, but that is not true. The regulatory process happens outside the House of Commons, outside the legislation, so there is not that openness and transparency.

I encourage members of the House to take a look at the very concerns that have been raised by constituents in our ridings and across the country and ensure that natural health products and the safety of consumers is protected by the bill.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of working with the member on the health committee in the past and I always appreciate her comments.

My question deals with the beginning of the member's speech where there was a demand for increased free market surveillance. This bill, in the case of natural health products, looks at the risk profile of a natural health product. A product that has been used for thousands of years or is of low risk would be approved very quickly. This is very important to those who have natural health products because everyone in this industry is aware that there is a huge backlog in natural health products.

If we actually do what the member is insisting on doing, that will make it more difficult for natural health products to enter the market and therefore will deny people the opportunity to have the maximum choice of natural health products.

I wonder if the member would reconsider that position and accept the life cycle approach where products are viewed on a risk profile and low risk products are approved quickly and high risk products receive lots of scrutiny and are monitored for the entire time the product is in the market after being released into the market.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact I was talking about pre-market work around pharmaceuticals, not natural health products.

When I was talking about natural health products, again I want to point to the concerns that were raised by the Canadian Health Food Association when it talked about the fact that the bill does not indicate any parameters and definitions, particularly around natural health products.

Part of what we have talked about in other contexts, aboriginal for example, is that if there is sufficient consultation done prior to a bill coming before the House, the passage of the bill is much smoother. In the area of natural health products, it would be very important to do appropriate consultation with not only people who manufacture the product but the users and many of our constituents who have a lot of knowledge about these products.

I would suggest that before we take a look at the risk benefit analysis for natural health products, we need to talk to the people involved in the industry in a much more thorough way.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan and certainly some of the concerns that she has raised.

Through the course of this debate, I too have received a significant number of interventions, emails, letters and phone calls on the topic as have, I am sure, all members of the House. There is a certain consistency that runs through them. I want to share one and then pose a question. The Van Zutphens from Port Hood are great citizens and are very good at sharing their opinions on particular issues. Mrs. Van Zutphen wrote, “We support the need for regulation that ensures that the products recommended by our naturopathic doctors are safe and effective but we do not support legislation that treats natural health products in the same manner as pharmaceutical products. We encourage the government to implement a third category for natural health products as was recommended by the Standing Committee on Health in 1998”.

I apologize for not knowing the position of the NDP on this particular issue, so I will ask the member where they do stand on the creation of that third category of products.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has supported the creation of that third category.

I know that in a previous Parliament there was a private member's bill before the health committee and I was pleased to sit on the health committee where there was extensive discussion and witnesses from across the country.

Generally what we have heard, and it is fairly conclusive, is that people do not want to see natural health products treated as a drug nor as a food, and that third category seems to be the most reasonable way to go.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-51.

There are many Canadians who have an intense interest in issues related to prescription drugs and natural health products. Their use has skyrocketed over the last number of years. I think Canadians can rest assured that when the bill is sent to committee, the committee is going to give due diligence in a very professional and consultative way. I am convinced of that.

My colleague from Oak Ridges—Markham is the vice-chair of the committee. On behalf of the committee and the chair he invites those who have a wide interest to make their concerns known to the committee. To use a clinical analogy, after the kind of analysis that will go into this legislation the prognosis for action is going to come to grips with some of the more modern issues that have evolved over the last three or four decades.

It is amazing to me that the Food and Drugs Act has not been updated since 1953. When we think of it, traditionally the debate centred around generic and brand name pharmaceutical companies. At one time the brand name pharmaceutical companies did most of the research and the generic companies picked up some of their patents after they had expired and brought cheap drugs to Canadians. The debate was always about achieving the right balance between the pharmaceutical companies in terms of serving the best and higher interests of Canadians. The debate has evolved far past that now, not that that debate is not still going on.

Natural health products are being used now by a large spectrum of Canadians. These products are supported by research and development by many companies that are Canadian and that are part of the health care system.

I would like to add one element that has not been touched on by any of the members that I am aware of to this point. Not too long ago in Maclean's magazine it was indicated that in fact megadoses of vitamins and nutrients taken in combination with certain prescribed drugs could have a deleterious effect with respect to the very objectives of the regime that had been entered into either on the advice of a physician or in a haphazard way by the consumer. Sometimes people will take megadoses because they have concluded they could not be harmful. Taken on their own the publication indicates that they probably are not, but taken in combination without appropriate advice, they can have a very disastrous effect.

I do not intend to pass any judgment on those conclusions because I am not qualified to do so, but those particular conclusions were picked up by several research based publications in the medical field. They in turn have said that this is a very important health risk, that the legislative regime should start to come to grips with.

For example, selenium taken on its own has certain advantages, but taken with warfarin, which is a blood thinner, the medical research documents and Maclean's magazine indicate it could have a very bad effect. I just use that as an illustration.

What is our responsibility with respect to the legislation that would take all of that into consideration?

The government has said that there should be elements of what is called a life cycle risk management system. In other words, the onus is not on the companies that all of a sudden see something in terms of research to say to Mr. and Mrs. Consumer that they had better not take that product in combination with the prescription they are taking, and the company will withdraw that from the market.

The onus is voluntary on the producer of the particular vitamin or whatever it may be, and it could be a prescription drug. We have had examples of that before. The life cycle risk management places the onus on the sector, be it pharmaceutical or natural health products. When they have, on the basis of the best available research, even an inclination that there is a problem, they have the responsibility to come forward. That is as it should be. I do not think anyone on this side or the government side should be arguing about those components to give the minister more authority, either through an injunctive mechanism or whatever it may be, to react in keeping with the seriousness of the medical implications of pharmaceutical drugs or naturopathic or natural health products. That is something we do in terms of serving the higher interest of consumers. As representatives of Canadians, we have a responsibility to make sure that the regime that is in place will do that.

It is interesting to note from the documentation I have read that for the first time the generic and non-generic pharmaceutical companies are in agreement with respect to consumer advertising. There are some consumer groups that take exception, but the generics and non-generics have said that they think there is a higher interest to be served by allowing consumers to see the full picture of a pharmaceutical product before them.

I have seen those truncated ads on television that do not give any background. They give a name but they say that people should go to their doctor. That is fine, but people should go to their doctor anyway. If it is on the basis of a little more information to talk to a doctor, why should we be saying to consumers that they should not have that information?

The generics and the non-generics in fact are agreeing with those provisions of the proposed legislation that really attempt to give more information.

I am not going to come down on either side of that issue, other than to say to my colleagues that I have been impressed with their understanding of these issues. When the bill comes to the committee those issues will be well debated. The committee will be hearing from a broad spectrum of interests and I am convinced that the public interest will be considered.

I have concentrated mainly on the implications with respect to the therapeutic category. I do believe that the natural products portion of the bill needs to receive more intense consideration. The reason is that Canadians generally see that as an opportunity for them to participate in their health care. The more we can help them to do that, the more we will be invigorating our health care system and bringing Canadians into the health care equation as active and informed participants.

If this legislation does those things, it will serve Canadians well. I am convinced, having listened to this debate, that in submitting this bill to committee, the broad spectrum of interests will be considered in a balanced and fair-minded way.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his thoughtful comments and note his grasp of the issue. He has demonstrated that he has given this issue some consideration.

The hon. member struck on one of the key elements of the bill, and that is the life cycle approach. I would like to give the member an opportunity to explain why the life cycle approach is beneficial for the consumer.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the largest criticism, both for research based pharmaceuticals and in fact for natural nutrients and products, has been that in the existing regime there is the capacity to back up in terms of applied research and getting the product onto the market.

I think this is in fact reverses that. A life cycle risk management is in fact a more dynamic process that places the onus on the full spectrum of medical jurisdictions, so to speak, and in fact will get those products out more quickly and in a safer manner. Surely that is the end result we all want to achieve. I think the legislation, properly worded and implemented, would do that.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this has been an excellent debate today. Some very strong points have been brought up throughout its course.

One of the common themes from the members on this side has been the concern around whether this legislation will handcuff naturopathic doctors. We are being asked by the Minister of Health to place some blind faith in him. He had said at first that it would in no way have an impact on natural health products, but now he is saying that he is going to bring forward some amendments when this legislation reaches committee. He is asking us to support moving it through committee.

I have a question for my colleague and I would like to get my colleague's position on record. If he sees that this bill would in fact be disenabling naturopathic doctors or in some way would handcuff them from conducting their trade or having access to the full range of various products, will he be voting against this when it comes back to the House?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the end objective is to protect Canadians and ensure their safety. All instruments and regulatory mechanisms are or should be designed to achieve that end, first and foremost. There is not a member in the House who would sacrifice that objective and principle on a wing and a prayer. I think that is why the legislation has been brought forward.

There are some gaps in the Food and Drugs Act, going back to 1953, that need to be updated. At the end of the day when the bill comes out of committee, and I am sure that all members in the House would agree, if Canadians cannot be assured that their safety has been protected and is characterized in the legislation, then we would be placing Canadians at serious risk and would have to oppose that legislation.

As I said and will say to my colleague, I am very optimistic, having heard the quality of this debate, that what comes out of committee will satisfy the broad spectrum of Canadians and the broad spectrum of interests within the natural products area.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

When we lay the grounds for legislation, it is important that we have confidence in the regulatory process and the ability to ensure that we are going to have accountability with this change to the act.

There has been a lot of discussion today about Bill C-51 and a good debate about its consequences. There is one thing I want to remind the House about, which creates the insecurity I wrestle with. I certainly am not going to be supporting this bill any further. I believe that the arguments have been well laid out as to why we cannot continue to move this forward. The legislation needs some fundamental changes.

I do not have any confidence that the drug industry is going to be subdued in this process. Let us look, for example, at the direct marketing that is going to happen with this bill. It goes back to an experience that I had here on the Hill in 2004 when we started looking at what I believe was Bill C-9 at that time, the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa Act, to provide help for AIDS in Africa. It was the precursor bill of Canada's Access to Medicines Regime.

The bill's purpose was to provide drugs to those developing countries that might be facing issues related to HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other types of diseases that were affecting civil society. The contemplation of the bill came through an international treaty that allowed the generic production of different types of medicines to proceed, medicines that may have already had a patent restriction on them, if the actual pharmaceutical company would not provide them at a low cost to those nations.

We went through a whole series of processes and lobbying at that time. There was a very powerful lobby by big pharma to stop that bill dead in its tracks. There was some political support to try to move it forward. What ended up happening is that big pharma got a provision in the bill that was not even part of the internationally signed agreement with the TRIPS and the Doha.

Where we actually could have provided any available drug to go forward, we created this artificial list of what drugs would be available to be sent overseas and which ones would not be. The danger behind this was that it allowed for lobbying to keep certain drugs off the market.

Many people said not to worry. They said that would not happen, that it would not be ethical and that the companies would not do this. We were told that the companies would behave themselves.

To make sure this would not happen, there was a provision in the legislation to make sure big pharma would not be doing it. Lo and behold, even as we were doing that, big pharma was caught lobbying, including by me. It was exposed. It made headline news that the pharmaceutical companies were already lobbying to keep some of the drugs off the market. This plan fell flat on its face.

This is what I am concerned about with regard to this bill and how we go forward. I am concerned about the active lobbying and also the prescriptive behaviour that can take place with drugs. This could actually affect everything from safety to health care costs. Also, we kind of have a self-prescriptive society. The commercials have hit the Canadian airwaves already. They are very clever. They have been done very well. Probably they should win awards, because everyone knows what is happening but they get around the technicalities.

At the same time, these commercials lead people to go to their doctors. The doctor may prescribe some type of medication or may want to provide some type of generic alternative. Then the patients perhaps insist that they know the actual effects better. It can create longer wait times, make people potentially consider changing doctors, or other types of behaviour.

This concerns us, because I certainly would hate to see the cost of drugs rise, some of which have already skyrocketed, based on marketing and advertising campaigns and influence from the drug companies. That is important to note, because we already know that women generally suffer the consequences from prescription errors. This problem actually could expand. We believe what the experts have said. They have noted this vulnerability in the system that is being proposed.

One of the other things that we have identified as very important with regard to this case is the issue related to the lack of parliamentary oversight. The fact of the matter is that this bill is going to give more provisions for the government to be able to override the parliamentary process and for the minister to have expanded powers.

That is a concern because what we have seen with this administration is very much a centralized ideology. That has been its choice of how it wants to govern and that is fine, but at the same time, it opens up the probabilities for greater control. And it may not even be necessarily this administration that does it in the future.

I am suggesting that in the future we could once again have these types of control elements that really change the nature of how we actually have drugs administered in our society. This is another reason that New Democrats are saying at this point that we do not want to change the law right now.

Another thing I wanted to connect to right now is that we seem to be moving to a less regulatory society in some respects. Some of that is of great concern. I can tell members about it based on my background in the transportation sector. For example, in rail and air when we have been moving to safety management systems and letting the industry police itself, and there is going to be more of that with this type of bill, we have seen what is really very much a falling out of safety in many respects.

For example, there is the transportation sector. We just did a complete study. There was a panel. We talked about a culture of fear and intimidation that prevents the actual workplace from operating the SMS properly. What we have actually seen is a step back in rail safety over the last number of years as we have had increased problems.

We are really worried about having the regulatory body become more involved with regard to policing itself. What we would say is that we need to have a stronger involvement by Health Canada.

We have seen these actual situations in the past in our society. It is not just Canada that has this problem. It is in the United States as well, where active lobbying has put drugs on the market that do not necessarily meet the tests of the day and have to be recalled. That includes everything from a series of drugs related to heart medications to others such as breast implants. There are the tragic circumstances with thalidomide. These have had consequences. I think we are going to witness greater problems there.

There is a legitimate problem that we have in this country with regard to getting some of the drugs and medications to market. The hope for this bill is that it will expand those opportunities, but it is very much based upon a risk management cycle. Once again, that risk management, left in the hands of the industry for the most part, is something that gives us some trouble because of the influence.

I have witnessed it myself, as I mentioned, with Bayer doing the actual lobbying to keep some of its drugs off Canada's Access to Medicines Regime. That was even at a time when there was heightened awareness and there were actual hearings going on in Ottawa. There was discussion about that bill. There were a lot of politics around it and active lobbying on behalf of NGOs, the generics and the pharmaceutical companies. The spotlight of the nation was on this and they broke the rules at that particular time with no hesitation. They were not apologetic about it.

So when we move into this type of system, we have a lot of concerns, because it will not just be the attention that is being provided right now. It will also be later on, as the politics about the bill wind down, where the regulatory regime and the oversight are so necessary, because then what we will probably be faced with, unfortunately, is a clawing back of decisions that caused problems for Canadian consumers and their health.

With regard to health products, I know that the Natural Health Product Protection Association has been very adamant about changing the way the system is being done here. Unfortunately, this is a regressive step. I have seen a lot of emails and letters and have had phone calls come in, not only just to my office but also in the Windsor and Essex County region. They are from people expressing disappointment with the government for not adequately fixing their situation. This bill is going to compound their situation so they certainly are not supporting this.

Therefore, with the way this is right now, what we are calling for is to make sure that we actually have a new bill. I know that the government is intending to table some amendments and it is positive that the government is actually looking at some of the weaknesses of the bill, but we believe the bill is far too weak in many respects. We should be re-entering a debate and forming a bill that is going to work.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid many aspects of the member's argument are incorrect. For example, the way that pharmaceuticals are dealt with would not change under the bill. What would change is that products like natural health products, which will be dealt with separately from drugs or food, would be evaluated on a risk profile. That means if a natural health product is of low risk, it will be able to enter the market much quicker than at present and this will allow people to have access to that natural health product much faster.

The bill would also allow us to deal with product safety like lead in toys, for example. Many Canadians would be surprised to know that the Government of Canada does not have the power to take products off the shelf. We have to rely on voluntary compliance.

I would like the member to reflect on the impact his party's position will have on people accessing natural health products. How does the member explain that he essentially has a position that will delay natural health products into the marketplace?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a disagreement with regard to natural health products. We would like a separate category and that will be the best for the long term. The process that we have right now does not have adequate resources.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that there are elements in the bill that are very positive, children's toys, for example. I am willing to bet that pulling products off the shelves could move ahead immediately, even without this type of legislation.

As the transport critic, I can tell the House that there are other ways we can protect Canadians and that is by tracking some of the cargo that comes into this country. Right now Canada checks less than 5% of the actual cargo that comes off transports that come by sea, and that is deplorable. There could be an increase there. The United States has the same problem.

The government has tabled another customs bill that would provide new powers. We have not seen that come forward in the House for debate yet. We are looking forward to working with the government on that measure and hopefully we will have a bill that is successful.

There are many different facets on how to protect Canadian consumers with regard to faulty products, especially children's toys. We actually have private member's legislation put forward by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley on some of these measures, so we are very sensitive to that. We have encouraged the government to support our ban on pesticides. That would have been something progressive that the government could have done today.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member mention that he would agree with some areas of the bill. I think it is the same on this side of the House. That is why we are moving forward to refer it to committee, so it can have a look at it and have amendments from a variety of stakeholders from across the country and see what we can do to improve the bill. We know it is imperfect and I think the member would agree with me on that. Why not move it to the next step? Why stop it here?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a legitimate question. We believe that the time has come to send this bill back to Canadians, to do it properly. The bill has too many flaws that are going to create problems later on. That is the reason why we have said it is time to back this up. There are some things that could be done in the interim to protect the safety of Canadians, not only through the health department but also through other departments.

If we send the bill to committee, the fear that we have is that there will not be enough of a bill left over to actually have something progressive and supportable at the end of the day. We would prefer to see a re-engagement on this so we can get it right. We have had to go through this many times.

This is the fifth or sixth time we have cycled through the bill. Unfortunately, it has always been flawed by the influence of big pharma. We need to pull that out and do it properly. We would support that process.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I of course take an interest in the health of my constituents and indeed of all my fellow citizens.

I consider it very important that drugs, foods and authorized therapeutic products be safe, that the effects of these products that are available over the counter or by prescription be studied and known, and that labelling of these products be accurate and honest.

By the way, I still do not understand why this government refused to respond to the very legitimate public demand as expressed in a bill introduced by a colleague calling for labelling of food products containing GMOs so that consumers can know exactly what they are buying.

I will return to the matter under debate. On one hand, the government does not want the public to have information on these GMOs, but it continues to trust pharmaceutical companies to test their own products. On the other hand, through this bill, the Conservative government is imposing severe sanctions on producers, vendors and importers of natural products and drugs that do not comply with Health Canada standards and is placing natural products in the same category as drugs under the heading of “therapeutic products.”

I understand that we do not want to put people’s health at risk, and I agree. Obviously, we must not approve a product that is dangerous to health. However, neither should we approve a system of labelling that would be incorrect in terms of dosage or the composition of a drug or natural product used for therapeutic purposes.

In that respect, and only in that respect, drugs and natural products are similar when they are used in the hope of bringing about a cure. We must have very strong tools to protect the public from fraud—which regrettably does exist—or from truly dangerous products. We know that the wrong information can have harmful and tragic consequences.

It seems to me that, above all, we must make available the necessary resources to inspect products thoroughly, to deal with inquiries properly and to ensure necessary monitoring. Unfortunately, that is not what the government is doing. Instead, it puts before us a bill with tremendous ramifications without providing the means for the agency responsible to properly deal with natural products and drugs.

Some aspects of this bill alarm people who properly like to use natural products. They prefer such products because they feel they are more in keeping with their culture, their lifestyle or, quite simply, their health. Traditionally, there has been a certain tension between those who believe in the practices of western medicine and promoters of alternative medicine, which, of course, includes the use of natural foods.

As my colleague from Quebec reminded us during this debate, between 33,000 and 40,000 natural health products are now waiting for approval. It may appear to some people that the delays that have built up are related to the new licensing requirement provided in this bill.

Many people will ask, quite properly, how a new product would be approved by Health Canada.

Increased powers for inspectors and much heavier penalties for those who break the law—they go up to $5 million and a three-year prison sentence—obviously make some people worry that the bill could create a de facto prohibition on the introduction of any new natural health product.

In my view, these concerns and perceptions deserve to be taken into account. Moreover, the doubts that arise from reading this bill are both numerous and varied. It is quite normal and legitimate to raise questions about the bill.

For example, is the prohibition on direct advertising maintained? What is the purpose of creating a licence for interprovincial exports? Is a product not inspected when it enters Canada? Third, the requirement for hospitals to report adverse reactions to a product to Health Canada could be rejected by the provinces because it deals with the administration of the health system, which is not under federal jurisdiction.

Therefore, I can only come to the conclusion that this bill is, to say the least, poorly constructed. When I say that, I am not blaming the drafters of the legislation but rather the intentions of the Conservative government. I humbly suggest that the faults are so numerous that I doubt that a committee really could amend this bill without changing the scope of the bill, which we know would make the amendments unacceptable.

As a result, it would be a loss of valuable time to send this bill to committee. Instead, we should send this bill back to the minister and his department to start over and make all the necessary corrections, especially since we learned during the debate that the minister wanted his government to introduce several amendments. Other members have referred to the infamous letter that the minister sent to the chair of the committee, and asked to see it. I am not a member of that committee, but I am just as interested in it as my colleagues.

In my view, if we are serious about this bill, it should be sent back to the minister and his department. They should be told to go back to work and when it is properly done, bring it back to the House. Then we will discuss a bill that will not raise so many questions. I have been here all day and I listened to the debate from the beginning. If the bill raises so many questions, it is probably because there are significant flaws in many places.

As the member for Wascana remarked, in a constructive spirit, if we are to produce something that is of benefit to our fellow citizens, the Conservative government should go back to work and introduce a new bill that will do a much better job.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide for the public watching a technical outline of the new enforcement regime in this bill.

I will read a couple of concerns that I have received. Martin states: “I am opposed to the police state powers in Bill C-51.” Anne asks: “Why do bureaucrats want seizure warrants without judge approval? With fines being increased a 1000 times, and seizing authority without a warrant, is Bill C-51 meant to bankrupt and silence its target audience?”

I thought the member made a good point about trying to make all these amendments at second reading. There was a bill in the justice committee and some members wanted to add a year to the penalty in the bill and the Conservative chair ruled it out of order as it was beyond the scope of the bill.

The amendments the Conservatives are proposing are good amendments, but they are far more drastic than that particular change, so I can understand why opposition members are a bit skeptical about being able to make these changes at second reading.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to answer the member's question in only a few minutes. I thank him for the question. I think that the most important aspect of his question is precisely that there are so many concerns about the operational framework for managing all this. There are so many concerns—I referred to them earlier—about the potential fines. When the citizens who we legitimately represent begin to be more afraid of how the bill will harm them rather than seeing how it will benefit them, that is reason enough to question it. That is when we have to work together to truly improve the bill so that it is worthy of the people we represent.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the fines, right now the maximum fine under the legislation is $5,000. If a company or organization puts a product on the shelf or a product was tampered with or any number of scenarios, the maximum fine for that company is $5,000. Yes, the bill would increase it manyfold, to $5 million.

Does that not make sense? Of course there would be a scale, depending on the severity of the injustice, but there needs to be consequences that matter if a product ends up harming or killing someone.

I will make a comment for the member for Yukon. For people to suggest that somehow the bill on product safety is equated to a police state is a real disservice to the integrity of everyone in the chamber and the people who live under those type of terrible conditions—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to cut off the hon. parliamentary secretary to allow the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques to respond.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to remember the disaster caused by thalidomide, for example. Our colleagues referred to that. In addition, we spoke a great deal about other drugs with adverse effects.

This is my answer to the parliamentary secretary: we cannot put a price on protecting our citizens. However, we have work to do when a bill is worded in such a way that it causes citizens to fear that certain substances—primarily natural products—would be more heavily penalized and would involve greater risks than drugs.

It is not our role to instill fear in our citizens; we are here to reassure, help and, of course, protect them. I would never want to help one group at the expense of another.

In my mind, one question remains: how can Health Canada allow pharmaceutical companies to be self-regulating to the point that they verify their own drugs? I believe that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-51. I have received a ton of emails both in my riding in east Vancouver and here in Ottawa. I have hear from constituents every day because the word is out in the community about the impact of the bill. I hope either we can defeat the bill, or if it does go to committee, that we can get it significantly changed so we can respond to the overwhelming concerns put forward by the public about the impact on the availability, accessibility and licensing of natural health products.

First, I thank my colleague, our health critic, the member for Winnipeg North. She has very valiantly stayed on this file and kept our caucus updated as to the progress of the bill. I know she will be very active at the committee, if it goes to committee, working with community interests and practitioners to ensure it does not become a big stone wall that denies access for people. Therefore, I thank her for the work she has done and the work she probably will do in the future. There will be a lot of interest in the bill, and a lot of people will follow it.

Very briefly I want to go back to 1997, when I first ran for the NDP in Vancouver East as a member of Parliament. I remember at that time there must have been a proposal in the House, under the Liberal government, to try to regulate natural health products. During the election campaign in May 1997, all hell broke loose in the community because of that. The government was completely caught off guard. It had no idea that it would get the reaction it did. It tried to do what the government today has tried to do, and that is to put natural health products in a box with drugs and to give the nod to the big pharmaceutical companies.

People in communities across the country cottoned on to what was going on and a massive campaign took place. It was a fairly quiet federal election campaign in 1997, but this issue kept on coming to the surface. It was a grassroots issue because people were so outraged, particularly in a place in east Vancouver. The heart and soul of Vancouver is Chinatown, the very origins of our city. A lot of the Chinese traditional medicine practitioners were very concerned about how it would impact them. Therefore, it became very much a cross cultural campaign as well.

After the federal election, the federal government of the day had to back off on what it wanted to do. As we know, since then we have had various machinations in terms of attempts for a regulatory approach. Suffice it to say, all credit goes to well-informed citizens who pay attention to legislation that sometimes creeps in, and they get the word out there about it. As a result, we get all these emails from people who are alerted to what the government has tried to do.

I am very thankful our caucus, with our health critic, the member for Winnipeg North, has monitored the bill very closely. We cannot support it in its present form. We are very concerned that it will lump natural health products in with drugs under a category called “therapeutic products”, which reverses a long-standing practice and position of a separate regulatory framework.

When I read some of the concerns listed in the emails I receive, one of them is the change of the categorization of natural health products. To treat these products the same as drugs is very inappropriate and is much too rigorous.

There are other concerns as well. We know right now there is a huge backlog of applications for the marketing approval of natural health products. How will that be dealt with under the bill? How will we ensure that the backlog is dealt with?

We are very concerned that the fines and penalties within the bill are incredibly excessive. It will mean that practitioners, producers and people who retail or market these products will hang on with their fingernails for their livelihood, and that is a very serious concern.

Why would there be such excessive fines and penalties for these products? In fact, the enforcement provisions are very heavy. They even allow inspectors to enter private property without a warrant. What is going on here?

We are very concerned that in the bill, as we have seen in other bills, so much discretion is left in the hands of the minister and the fact that regulatory requirements can be overridden within the department. Why would that be allowed to happen? This sets off alarm bells for people, especially when they go through the fine print and look at what is taking place.

I am very thankful we have had so much response on the bill. I have had more response on this bill than any bill for a very long time. I gather that other members of the House are getting the same kind of response.

I will read some of the responses I received. Jennifer, from east Vancouver, said:

Bill C-51 undermines the civil rights of Canadians to take control of our own health and well being. It goes against all logic and intuitive common sense and in no way serves the interests of your electorate....

Millions of alternative health practitioners that are certified through Canadian educational institutions who have dedicated their life to studying the healing effects of herbs would not be able to stay in practice.

I have another email from Anne, who lives in east Vancouver. She says:

—categorizing Natural Health Products as therapeutic products, together with drugs, medical devices, cells, tissues, organs, and veterinary drugs, Bill C-51 is viewing these exclusively to the lens of pharmaceutical drugs.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I hate to interrupt the hon. member at this point, but she will have three minutes remaining in her time for her speech.

It being 5:51 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.