This is amendment NDP-2. I would move that clause 3 be amended (a) by replacing line 27 on page 3 with the following:
may order the holder of a therapeutic product authorization to
and by replacing line 35 on page 3 with the following:require the holder of a therapeutic product authorization to
If you look at the bill, it uses the words, “may order a person who sells”, and then on line 35 it says, “require the person who sells”. In the rest of the bill it talks about a “holder”. I believe the term holder is a broader definition that includes a seller and a holder, so it's a better term to use. I think that's possibly why it's being used in that manner elsewhere in the bill. We think it would be better to use the term “holder” here, so that the minister can be explicitly empowered to issue suspensions and recalls to both types of persons, both sellers and holders of therapeutic authorizations, as it covers the spectrum.