Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I congratulate you, Mr. Calkins. You have a long experience in the House; it's almost 20 years, I believe. The fact that you've brought the bill this far is an exception in terms of private members' bills. You're obviously responding to a very clear need. There is no doubt that the issue of natural health products bears much closer examination. That is why I and the NDP voted for the bill to get to committee so that we can do this more extensive examination.
You didn't mention in your introduction—but I think it's fair enough to reference—that this is the third time since we've been in the House of Commons that we've had bills that have an impact, or a potential impact, on natural health products. I'm referencing, of course, Bill C-51. That was brought forward by the Harper government. It was, in the end, not adopted. Then there was Bill C-17, Vanessa's Law. Those were both under the Harper government. We now have the most recent legislation that's been brought forward.
In your preface to your initial statement, I think your very eloquent reference to the importance of the industry and the importance of natural health products was absolutely valid. We've been going around in circles on this issue. The industry obviously needs some assurance that what will be put into place will benefit the industry and will benefit consumers. I count myself as one of the consumers of natural health products. In fact, I take magnesium because my doctor prescribed it; it makes a difference on the long hauls that we take, which I will be taking shortly to go back to B.C. This is important.
We've had a number of different iterations of the bills. How do we get the balance right to ensure that we are actually benefiting the industry and making sure that consumers have access to important natural health products, while also making sure that there is some oversight?