Evidence of meeting #34 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'd like to ask Mr. Lee why the word “holder” is used elsewhere but not here.
Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
We didn't want to narrow it. “A person who sells” does get you that widest group in the chain. As Mr. Young just said, it goes all the way down through the company—which is typically the holder of the authorization—into wholesale and into pharmacy. So the minister would be able to use the order to get everyone in that distribution chain. If it were just “holder” here, it would constrain us to being able to order only a market-authorization holder, which is usually the company. We want to make sure we're getting into all the points of sale.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
We did hear from a number of witnesses who spoke on this point, and they seemed to say the opposite, that the broader term was “the holder” because it would then capture the seller. These are people who are very expert in drug safety laws, so it's very conflicting.
Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
I have very great respect for all of them, but you need to look at the definition of “sell”. I think what was not raised in that discussion, which is very important to cover, is that “a person who sells”—and that is defined in the act—is somebody who either sells for money or distributes not for money. So it does give you the widest scope under the recall language.
If it were just “authorization holder”, again that phrase is there only to make sure of the powers the minister has over people who have licences to sell.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Why do you use “holder” elsewhere in the bill? Shouldn't it be consistent?
Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
It's basically to show who can be ordered to do further tests and studies or label changes, for example. It's usually identifying a group of people who are the regulated parties. That's usually the drug companies or the warehouses that move the product and that hold an establishment licence.
The definition of “a person who sells” is much broader, and it could include a pharmacist. For recall, you really do want to reach through to everybody who's going to be distributing. Pharmacists aren't licensed by Health Canada to do what they do, so you do want to pick up the sale aspect.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Okay. I think that was a good explanation.
On the list, I have Mr. Lunney and then Mr. Scarpaleggia.
Mr. Lunney.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I'll be brief. The point that Ms. Davies is raising came from Elaine Gibson. I thought she made a very credible and very succinct presentation to committee. I believe the explanation that's been provided about the definition of “seller” satisfies the concern Ms. Davies had, so I appreciate the explanation from Mr. Lee and from Mr. Young.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I would like to move my subamendment so that paragraph 3 (a) would say, “may order the seller or the holder...”. Similarly, paragraph 3 (b) would say, “requires the seller or the holder of the therapeutic product...”.
That would be my subamendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
All right. That is the subamendment to the amendment, which would involve the seller or the holder.
(Subamendment negatived)
I don't see any further discussion on Ms. Davies' amendment NDP-2 . So all those—
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Excuse me. On a point of order, just as a procedural thing, if somebody moves a subamendment, does the whole floor have to agree to the subamendment or just the mover of the amendment?
If I agree to the subamendment, would that not then be sufficient and we would then just vote on the amendment? No? It has to be two separate votes on every occasion? Okay. That's fine. I just wanted to clarify that .
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
What we'll do is to have our legislative clerk give you the scenario where it wouldn't require a vote and where it would, just so that we're all clear. Okay?
Go ahead, sir.
Procedural Clerk
If you know ahead of time that you may have a subamendment, it would be a good thing to move it at the same time you move your amendment, all at once, and then—
Procedural Clerk
But when you move your amendment, let's say NDP-2, and you know you want to add “the seller or”, you can move it at that time. When you say, “I want to move my NDP amendment, but I want to change the wording”, you can move it at that point, and we'll consider it a package, if you want. But if you do it at first, as it was, and then you want to add a subamendment afterwards, you can't do it. It's at somebody else, so therefore there are two questions.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Clearly it often happens because of the result of what you're hearing from people, right? Then you're trying to mitigate what you've heard. I get it. Thanks.
Conservative
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Can you please remind us also of how friendly amendments work? In that situation, could a friendly amendment have worked?
Procedural Clerk
It's a fiction, but that's the way it goes. You propose something that's really an amendment. If it's a friendly amendment, everybody would be agreed.