Thank you, Chair.
Despite the flattering comments from my colleague Mr. Julian—I'm not going to presuppose his intentions and I will take him at his word—in my interpretation of what would happen if this amendment were to be passed by this committee, it would basically undermine the intent of the bill, which Mr. Ellis has invited me to pronounce on again, which is to remove natural health products from the therapeutic product definition.
When you look at the list of clauses that this amendment would leave in place for the natural health product industry, you see that it refers numerous times to those clauses that would be exempted and refers numerous times to natural health products being considered therapeutic products, which I believe does violate the rules of admissibility, Chair, but I'll await your decision on that.
For those listening to the debate here at the committee, this would leave in question in the legislation whether or not natural health products could be interpreted as therapeutic products when the intention is to be very clear that notwithstanding the subsequent amendments that I hope we can get to.... It has been made very clear to me that this would add confusion—uncertainty—and I think would allow various interpretations of the law to allow Health Canada to continue on in contravention of the will and the intention of the original drafting of the bill.
I would recommend, Chair—and I would hope—that you would see that this should be inadmissible, and if you do see fit, I would urge colleagues at the table to vote this amendment down. I think the subsequent amendments all address the concerns that were raised by various industry stakeholders and affected Canadians without undermining the intention of the bill that I drafted, that passed at second reading and is here at this committee.
I hope that's helpful and adds clarity, Mr. Chair.