Evidence of meeting #140 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Before we start going clause by clause, I do want to say something, and I see that Luc has done a lot of work on this. I think NDP members have also done a lot of work in amending this. I really have to compliment both of them for having spent the time to try to figure out how to make this work, given the competing concerns.
I think, as we will see, that I shall be in favour of the NDP amendments rather than his. I do want to say to Luc that perhaps his would have worked as well, but the NDP amendments seem to me much simpler and easier to do than to go through all his things. However, I'm certainly impressed by the fact that Luc went through all the regulations and found out which regulations would apply irrespective of the act, and I do want to thank Luc for all his hard work. He may well be right that what he proposes would have been just as good.
I wanted to throw that in because I think Luc's done a great amount of work, and as always, he's done a great job.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.
After such comprehensive opening statements, I think the only thing left to do is probably to vote, but perhaps I'll be proven wrong.
I have called clause 1. The first amendment to clause 1 is NDP-1. Do you wish to move and speak to that, Mr. Julian?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Again, my thanks go to Mr. Calkins for bringing this bill forward. This is really important legislation.
As I mentioned in my preamble that you graciously allowed me, Mr. Chair, I understand the concerns that have been raised by the natural health products sector about all the additional powers that have been given to the minister. Therefore, NDP-1 would amend the bill by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:
combination of drugs and devices, but, for the purposes of sections 21.31, 21.32, 21.33, 21.7 and 21.71, does not include a
and then the clause continues “natural health product within the meaning of the Natural Health Products Regulations”.
The intent here is to take away many of the other powers that have been given under Vanessa's Law and that the sector has raised very legitimate concerns about. However, you'll be sure to point out, Mr. Chair, that it continues to allow the minister to recall a product and take it off the shelves.
Now, this is something that I think, from the evidence that we've heard—and we've had very effective witnesses coming forward.... There are very occasionally in this sector companies that, for whatever reason, will not respond to voluntary recalls, so I do understand the importance of ensuring that when there's a risk of injury to health, there is the ability to force a mandatory recall in those rare circumstances. That is why I'm presenting this amendment: to ensure that the mandatory recall provisions are maintained and that those other powers are taken away.
I wish the government would have consulted the sector, the industry, before Vanessa's Law was put into effect, but I think this helps to mitigate most of the concerns that they have raised while maintaining that requirement or that ability for Health Canada to ensure a mandatory recall in rare circumstances when a company has not been co-operative.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thanks very much, Chair.
Certainly I have a difference of opinion with respect to Mr. Julian. I suspect we will need a ruling from you on this, Chair.
The thing I will agree with Mr. Julian on is that during the testimony, we heard about the powers of recall and the importance thereof, and I will also agree with him—I know you will find this shocking, but I will agree with him again—that we heard great acceptance of this within the industry.
What I would like to point out to you, though, Chair, with respect to admissibility is that, in essence, Bill C-368 changes the definition of a therapeutic product, meaning that a natural health product is not considered a therapeutic product by the overall scope of this bill. When you look at the Food and Drugs Act cited in Mr. Julian's amendment, you see that it goes on to talk about a therapeutic product.
In my mind, those two things are diametrically opposed. It becomes very difficult to exclude natural health products from being a therapeutic product but then cite regulations inside the Food and Drugs Act that call it a therapeutic product. That is, in my mind, as I said, a binary decision. You can't be and not be a therapeutic product at the same time.
That would be the difficulty that I would have, and I would go on to suggest that there perhaps are—again, directly contradicting Dr. Powlowski—more elegant ways proposed by Mr. Thériault to allow the minister to have those abilities of recall, etc., that we talked about.
In essence, the amendments would specifically come back to two things: the ability to recall products—which, again, we heard already exists—and strengthening that ability. I don't think there's going to be any argument against that.
The second part of it, of course, is the removal of nicotine-containing products from the definition of natural health products.
I think that when we begin to muddy the waters of the definition of a therapeutic product by allowing it to be a therapeutic product in one sense but not in another, it is going to create significant difficulties with the original omnibus bill that was presented by the NDP-Liberal government back in the spring, because the definition of a therapeutic product, a natural health product, becoming in essence a therapeutic product would then allow all of the other changes that come about thereafter, meaning the cost recovery program and the labelling changes as well.
As I said, in my mind, those two things are diametrically opposed. Given that the principle of the bill is to move natural health products out of the therapeutic product realm, the admissibility rules would state that the most common rules of admissibility are related to the principle of the bill and:
The principle of the bill is the object or purpose which the bill seeks to achieve. The principle of the bill is fixed when the bill is adopted at second reading. Any amendment contrary to the principle of the bill is inadmissible.
I think that if the real principle of the bill is unclear, we have a unique situation here. If it's unclear in writing, we could ask the drafter of the bill what the principle of the bill is, and I think it would be very clear that moving all natural health products away from the definition of a therapeutic product is really the principle of this bill and therefore makes NDP-1 inadmissible as an amendment.
I'll say it one more time. That doesn't mean that we don't support that type of movement, just that the NDP-1 amendment has to be deemed inadmissible by you.
Thank you, Chair.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I think Mr. Ellis's reading is quite accurate.
I have the impression that Mr. Julian's comments don't correspond exactly to what his amendment proposes. What he's proposing is to remove the reference to the exception and leave natural health products as therapeutic products. On the other hand, he says he wants to remove the obligation linked to sections 21.31, 21.32, 21.33, 21.7 and 21.71.
However, the bill proposes to change the environment in which the exception is dealt with, that of therapeutic products, to one dealing with natural health products, by referring to Vanessa's Law. Even if we remove these sections, and even if we say that these sections would not apply, this is already provided for in the Natural Health Products Regulations. It's as if we're doing nothing here except contravening the spirit of the bill. That's my understanding. Perhaps we should ask the clerks for clarification.
For this reason, I thought amendment BQ‑2 would be related to amendment NDP‑1. Indeed, in our amendment, as I'll explain shortly, we return to the minister's power of recall, whereas, in the NDP amendment, the minister's power of recall is already provided for in Bill C‑47. So there's a problem with Mr. Julian's intention.
It seems to me that amendment BQ‑2 is more in keeping with the spirit of the bill, while ensuring that the minister is guaranteed a right of recall. I don't want to discuss two amendments at the same time, but the one I proposed was aimed at two things. I should have proposed four amendments rather than just three. In any case, amendment BQ‑2 goes some way to restoring the minister's power of recall, which was abandoned in the bill.
This power of recall must also lead to offences and penalties. That's why we're including it in amendment BQ‑2, because of the proposed change. We are subsequently clarifying this in amendment BQ‑3.
I would vote against amendment NDP‑1, because it does not respect the very spirit of the bill.
In fact, I was sure it was a government amendment. If the government had wanted to make an amendment, it would have made this one.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you.
That exhausts the speakers list.
To respond to the matter raised by Dr. Ellis and Mr. Calkins, by not ruling the amendment out of order, I therefore consider it to be in order. That decision was based on advice I received from legislative counsel.
I'm going to ask them to provide to you the reasoning they gave me, which I relied upon in order to rule it in order. If, after hearing their reasoning, you feel that I've made the wrong decision to declare it in order, it's open to you to challenge the chair, but there really isn't another way to deal with it.
I'd ask counsel to explain the reasons that this amendment is in order, and then I'll leave it to you if you have a motion.
Alexie Labelle Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just regarding the procedural aspect, we advised the chair that it was admissible due to the fact that we judged it to be within the scope of the bill rather than contradicting the bill. Basically, we judged that it just narrowed its scope within the bill, rather than being out of scope, for example. That's the advice we provided.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
For those reasons, I determined that the amendment was in order.
I see Ms. Goodridge and Dr. Ellis.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this is pretty clear. In my understanding, as I read through this bill and then had to go back into the different pieces of legislation to really, truly understand what exactly this amendment would mean....
Monsieur Thériault explained in great detail how much work he put into doing this. I think many members of Parliament put in that same amount of work, although perhaps not to the same degree of precision. I think we need to commend Monsieur Thériault for the wonderful work he does in ensuring that Canada does have the best possible legislation, but I don't understand, after the conversations we've had around this table, and specifically the clarification given by Mr. Calkins, how this amendment would be in order based on the very clear admissibility rules for amendments. I'm at a loss.
The decision was made prior to hearing all of this, and there is no space for changing it. It very clearly does not fit in line with the principle of the bill. It very clearly does not fit within the scope of the bill as written by the person who drafted the bill. In most circumstances, we don't have the luxury to hear from the person who created the bill on their intentions in order to really understand whether something is or is not within the scope. We had that opportunity today. We very clearly heard it. I think it was exceptionally clear.
I'm very frustrated that the NDP is saying that they fully support this bill and they want to get this through, and then they put forward an amendment that effectively does it in a slightly less direct way than what we had before. Maybe this is a tiny bit, slightly less bad than the sledgehammer that came from the Minister of Health, but it still does not address the actual issues. It is not in line with the principle of the bill. It is not in line with the scope of the bill. I don't believe it has that space.
Mr. Chair, I truly believe that the decision from the legislative clerks is wrong. I'm wondering what other opportunities we have. Other than challenging the ruling of the chair, what other recourse do we have here? I do think that we need to clarify this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
To answer your question, there would be none. That's the only option you have. A ruling has been issued. If the committee decides to overturn the ruling of the chair, then so be it. There's no other option.
Next is Dr. Ellis. Then it's Mr. Thériault and Mr. Calkins.
November 21st, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thanks very much, Chair.
Certainly, as we begin to look at this, the sad part is hearing what you've just said, given the fact that Mr. Julian is quite prepared to gut a $13-billion industry, which he so wrongly says he supports. We know, as I said previously, that Bill C-368 will remove labelling changes, it will remove cost recovery and it will remove many other burdensome legislative policies with respect to the Food and Drugs Act as it respects natural health products.
As we begin to look at that, Mr. Julian himself referred back to how things happened in the House of Commons, as all of us are able to do. You can go back and you can look at who agreed to send this bill here to this committee. The yeas were 171 and the nays were 146. Clearly it was the will of the House at that time to accept the fact that Bill C-368 undid the negative changes of the omnibus bill put forward by the NDP-Liberal coalition.
I think the difficulty that exists today is that we hear the NDP saying they support this industry because they know they need those voters to agree with them when they introduce a wrecking motion, a wrecking amendment, to the actual spirit of Bill C-368. It's important that we attempt to put into context for Canadians what we have heard. Let's be honest: This amendment, NDP-1, will return the landscape of natural health products back to where we were before Bill C-368 existed.
When Bill C-368 didn't exist, what we heard very clearly from every representative of the natural health product industry who came forward was, “You are going to ruin our business; you are going to put us out of business; you are going to drive our business to the United States; you are going to drive Canadians to buying products online from sources that have absolutely no testing of their facilities, no ability to recall, no need to be careful with the ingredients that are on the list and no safety requirements.”
As we begin to understand that this is the case that existed after the deadly bill was proposed and, sadly, passed in the House of Commons by the NDP-Liberal coalition, now we know that marriage of the woke NDP-Liberal leaders is back in full force. We heard it today in the House of Commons with their tricky—
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Again, I have to challenge Dr. Ellis on relevance. I mean, I understand that he may not have read the amendments and certainly doesn't seem to understand the impacts of all the powers being stripped from the minister, but he has to be relevant when we're discussing these amendments, and he is not being relevant at all.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
The problem I have with this is that they're doing indirectly what they can't do directly, and that is basically contesting the ruling without formally challenging it. However, he is speaking to the tenor of the amendment. I really don't think he's that far off the mark on that, so I'm going to let him go, but I appreciate your intervention.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you, Chair.
Just because Mr. Julian doesn't like what I'm saying doesn't mean that it's not true or that he needs to attempt to impugn my character to say that I didn't read it or understand it. I read it and I do understand it, and the sad fact for you, Mr. Julian, is that there are folks who want to hold you to account because we do understand the underhanded nature with which you want to gut Bill C-368 and drive—
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
We have committee procedures. Personal attacks of the kind Dr. Ellis is doing now are simply inappropriate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Please, if speaking through the chair would dull the impact of a direct insult, then maybe that's the way to go about it, Dr. Ellis.
Go ahead.