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.

[Dr. Jeff Poston, Executive Director, Canadian Pharmacists Association]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Canadian Pharmacists Association very much welcomes this opportunity to present to you today during your review of the 10-year plan to strengthen health care.

While medication use is an integral component of Canadian health care, adverse drug events and medication misuse remain a serious issue. In a recent Canadian study, 24% of patients were admitted to a hospital's internal medicine service for drug-related causes, and over 70% of these admissions were deemed preventable. Similarly, another recent study in Vancouver found that one out of every nine emergency department visits was due to a drug-related cause, and over two-thirds of these were preventable. It's against this background and concerns about appropriate use and access to care that we want to base some of our remarks to you today.

Since the announcement of the 10-year plan in 2004, some progress has been made; however, there are many challenges that remain unmet. I'm going to focus on four areas.

First is the national pharmaceutical strategy. Progress has been slow to date. There's been a relative lack of progress in overall strategy. The process has not been very transparent, consultation with stakeholders took place relatively late in the day, and we still don't know what's happening in many of the key areas, if indeed any progress has been made on issues such as expensive drugs for rare diseases or the development of a common national formulary. We're concerned that many of the issues identified as priorities in the NPS are being addressed in isolation, and we see the need for more focus on a comprehensive strategy to address the issues.

Appropriate use of pharmaceuticals needs to be a key focus of the national pharmaceutical strategy. In September 2006, over 20 months ago, the progress report on the national pharmaceutical strategy identified further work to be done. We've seen little activity, and the process seems stalled.

There have been a few initiatives in the NPS that have resulted in meaningful benefits for Canadians: some provinces have announced catastrophic drug coverage programs; the recently announced Bill C-51 should modernize the drug approval process; the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has been analyzing non-patented drug prices; and some provinces have announced new regulations and policies concerning pharmaceuticals. There needs to be a sustained effort by federal, provincial, and territorial governments to continue to develop and implement a truly national pharmaceutical strategy.

With respect to health human resources, the 10-year plan recognized the need to increase the supply of health care professionals in Canada, including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. There has been progress in health human resources planning. Health Canada has invested in interprofessional education and collaboration, support for integration of internationally educated health care professionals, and generation of data for the seven priority health care providers identified in the 10-year plan.

The approval of an FPT framework for pan-Canadian planning and progress in provincial plans to manage health human resources have been positive developments; however, there is much more that remains to be done. Areas of focus need to include planning based on population needs; addressing shortages, particularly of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, and of other health care professionals; and healthy workplace issues. We also still need better data collection.

Thirdly, I want to comment on primary health care reform. This is critical to the sustainability of the health care system as we move forward. Much more work is needed to address issues of timely access to care, interprofessional collaboration, and optimizing the scopes of practice of health care professionals. As medication experts and the most accessible health care providers, pharmacists need to be further integrated into primary health care and primary health care teams.

Finally, I want to comment on electronic health records. EHR and telehealth are key technologies to enable health system renewal. Adoption of computer technology and electronic health records by clinicians remains a challenge. Progress has been slow. Most provinces are developing a drug information system that will include a complete drug profile and enable e-prescribing applications. We believe the electronic health record will enable primary health care reform and allow health care practitioners to better care for their patients.

Better information will lead to better health care decisions, and DIS applications will lead to enhanced drug safety. To this end, funding for Canada Health Infoway needs to be increased in order to realize the vision of the electronic health record.

In conclusion, while progress has been made on some elements of the 10-year plan, significant challenges and opportunities remain. More funding and more work will be required to address the issues that were identified by the first ministers four years ago.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lui Temelkovski]

We've had discussions about that, and we'd prefer not to ask questions on Bill C-51.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the submissions you made here today. It's clear that there's a real tension between effective regulation and efficient regulation. I also recognize that we're talking about these issues at a particular point in time.

Bill C-51 is just around the corner. None of you has mentioned it today. I know that you're probably going to be back here chatting about it some more. I wonder if I could lead you there now, though, in light of some of the concerns you've been raising.

I've heard from a lot of people in my community and across the country who are worried about the impact of Bill C-51 on natural health products. In that bill, it seems to me that what we're doing—

[Darren Praznik, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

On behalf of the CCTFA and our more than 160 member companies, which represent about a $5.4 billion industry in Canada, we'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on this very important particular matter. We have already forwarded copies of our brief, I understand, in both official languages to your office and staff, and we have distributed copies here as well.

First, let me just say that the member companies of our association continue to be and always have been supportive of Health Canada in its efforts to ensure the health of Canadian consumers. We know that Health Canada takes its job very seriously and strives to make decisions on the basis of sound science. We as an association also very much share the belief that regulation should be both effective in achieving its health outcomes and efficient as well in its operation. That's why as an association we support the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act that are being proposed by Bill C-51.

It is in the area of efficiency of operation, however, that we have our particular issues with the natural health products directorate. The first one I want to address, and it's been talked about already, is the backlog.

I very much appreciate the position Mr. Waddington is in. I know they work very hard at addressing that backlog. He keeps us well informed. We know as well that earlier this year we were looking actually at more applications coming in for non-compendial products than were being processed every day, so the backlog was expanding. We're glad to hear that you may have turned that corner.

But it really is unacceptable. Although they're trying very hard, they need to be sufficiently resourced and supported to be able to manage this particular backlog. We have member companies who don't even bother now bringing products in, if they have to wait a year or two to go through the process. We very much share the views that were expressed by the Direct Sellers Association of Canada.

Our recommendation to you today is that you don't want to get in their way to ensure that they're spending more time answering for what they're doing than addressing the backlog; that would be an unintended consequence of this committee's interest. But we think they need to be brought back on a regular basis to this committee to report on their progress and be able to get that backlog eliminated in as short a time as possible. That's enough said, I think, on that particular issue.

The other issue we would like to address is what we view as the unintended consequence of creating a third branch of regulation for what in essence are personal care products. When the NHP branch or division was set up under drugs, it was intended to address what were lower-risk products within the drug category.

All of the products that were in personal care products had traditionally been regulated under cosmetic regs or drug regs. When NHP's were created, the drug regs created a further subcategory. Our products were already regulated under drugs; they included antiperspirants, fluoridated toothpaste, anti-dandruff products, medicated skin care products, antiseptic skin cleansers, acne products, and primary sun screens, including makeup that had an SPF. These products were regulated under drug regs but were moved, because of their composition, under the NHP regs, which were intended really for a lower category of risk.

Because our products are generally very low-risk, I don't think enough attention was paid to the detail in similar regulatory regimes. The result is that we ended up with two very odd—I would argue unexplainable—and costly differences in regulation.

One, of course, was tamper-proof or tamper-evidence security packaging. I want to illustrate with the two products I have with me. I didn't bring them today because Phil and I thought it would be a hot debate and we needed extra antiperspirant, but these are antiperspirants. One is a drug; the other is a natural health product.

When the regs for the natural health products were set up, they followed pretty similarly the packaging requirements for drugs, except that they didn't include...the technical term, I guess is the “exclusion for topical products”. The result is, if you buy a drug antiperspirant in Canada, you do not need tamper-evidence packaging, but if you buy an antiperspirant that is a natural health product, with supposedly a lesser degree of risk, you need to put on a tamper-evident package.

I don't think anyone ever intended that to happen, but it was an unintended result of not matching the same level of regulation.

Manufacturers both in Canada and abroad who ship antiperspirants that are NHPs into Canada spend literally millions of dollars putting tamper-evident protection on your antiperspirant that adds really no value but that costs the companies and consumers millions of bucks.

Is that really what we're intending to do: have an unintended consequence of not making sure regulations match?

The second area that we just flagged is heavy-metal testing. Again, for NHPs, heavy-metal testing is required for our level of low-risk products. Nowhere in the world has that yet been required, but for drugs, supposedly a higher-risk heavy-metal testing is not required. Again, we have two sets of regulations applicable to drugs, which are supposedly higher-risk, and NHPs, which are supposedly lower-risk, and they don't match. The consequence to Canadian industry and Canadian consumers is having to pay a lot of extra money for, I would argue, no additional value. Again, there are unintended consequences and some oversight. We've been raising this issue for four years. I think there's some progress on addressing the antiperspirants issue, but we raise it and bring it to your attention again.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair.

[Carla Barry]

Thank you.

Section 7 of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act has the general prohibition against false and misleading labelling advertising, but further on in that particular section what is misleading is also described. Several words in there are used to clarify what the intent of “misleading” applies to, and “origin” is one of those.

With regard to Bill C-51, it was felt that it was important that the two false and misleading prohibitions be the same in both pieces of legislation, as the CFIA is responsible for the administration in relation to non-health and safety for both pieces of legislation with respect to food.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay. Thank you. It was just a comment that was made during testimony from one of our people who was testifying.

With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Bill C-51 is before the House right now. When you look at that bill and look at what it's doing, it's going to have effects on labelling, I'm assuming, because in one area it says, “...regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit, safety or origin”.

If we apply that to what we're dealing with nowadays, and we have a jar of pickles, for example, that is imported from China or India, it can be labelled “Product of Canada” with the 51% rule. Does the word “origin”, if it goes through, apply to the finished product, namely the pickles, or to the imported ingredients, the cucumbers? That's another thing.

Are you watching Bill C-51? Can you talk to us about that?

[Ronald Doering]

I'll just say that I've done a varying cost of analysis of it for more than one client. The next “Food in Canada” article is on this point.

All they've really done to section 5 is clean it up and add “and import”, so now it's going to be much harder to import food. There will be a much higher onus on food importers than there formerly was, because now it's a criminal offence to import food that doesn't comply with the mislabelled, misbranded one. So companies are going to be far more careful. Most companies are. Most companies I act for, for example, actually have people out there determining where the 32 ingredients in a frozen pizza actually come from and getting supplier warranty agreements. This has been working its way through the system on the tracking side. So Bill C-51 is not going to change this significantly, but it could affect importers principally.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I think your time has actually expired. I'm so sorry.

Before I turn it over to Mr. Miller, I just want to ask a question. If any of the witnesses are familiar with Bill C-51, they will know that in the amendments to the Food and Drug Act, section 5 is looking at truth in labelling, particularly making it more specific to food and talking about origin of food.

Are there any comments on unintended consequences, as you've already talked about, Mr. Doering, and how they might impact upon the industry? I think Madame Cruikshank has some comments on that as well.

Mr. Doering.

Food and Drugs Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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 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.

[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.