Evidence of meeting #142 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 video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
The speakers list is now exhausted.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt the subamendment proposed by Mr. Naqvi?
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to BQ-2 as presented.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)
That brings us to new clause 3.1. There is an amendment in your package. It is NDP-2.
Mr. Julian, do you wish to move NDP-2?
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
It hasn't been moved. We'll just go right to BQ-3.
Mr. Thériault, do you want to present amendment BQ‑3?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To better understand the change proposed by amendment BQ-3, see paragraph 30(1.2)(f) on page 40 of the Food and Drugs Act.
Additionally, to provide some clear context, I'm going to read subsection 30(1.2), which appears under the heading “Regulations — therapeutic products”.
30(1.2) Without limiting the power conferred by any other subsection of this section, the Governor in Council may make regulations
Now going back to amendment BQ-3, I move that Bill C-368 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 1 the following new clause:
3.1 Subsection 30(1.2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (f): (f.01) respecting the recall of natural health products within the meaning of the Natural Health Products Regulations; (f.02) prescribing penalties for the contravention of subsection 21.3(3) in respect of a natural health product within the meaning of the Natural Health Products Regulations or of the regulations made under paragraph (f.01);
The industry and Health Canada people will have to discuss this amendment before the fines are determined. We will have to do things properly. As I've said from the outset, the fines imposed must be proportionate to the offences committed within the industry. We've discussed this at length and observed that the fines are disproportionate, which, incidentally, is why Bill C-368 was proposed.
Amendment BQ-3 would therefore make it possible to put regulations in place, and the current provisions would apply in the meantime.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Lee, I have a question in relation to this amendment. As I think I alluded to in my earlier comments, as I read this amendment, it gives the Governor in Council the authority to set fines as opposed to Parliament. My preference would be that Parliament should have the power to determine the quantum of the penalties and not the Governor in Council, or on the other hand the cabinet.
Is this out of the norm? Is what Mr. Thériault is suggesting out of the ordinary? From a regulatory perspective, what's your preference as to how the power should be outlined?
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Mr. Chair, at least for the Food and Drugs Act, this is not something we have seen before. We understand the intent is to make sure there's robust discussion and consultation in setting the fine.
I have one technical observation. I think it is very important to clarify that the word “penalties” doesn't occur in the act. We actually have the words “fine” and “terms”. I don't know if this speaks to both with regard to the Governor in Council. I guess the intention is to sort of set a fine level, but there are also terms of imprisonment on.... When it comes to penalties, it's just to clarify whether it means that both might be set by the Governor in Council.
In any case, it's a highly unusual inclusion. It is usually something that Parliament does directly. It doesn't delegate fine levels or prison terms, as an observation. Basically, that process would take some time to make the regulation, so there's some ambiguity in the meantime. I suppose we would need to default back to the $5,000 level. Again, if there's a recall situation and getting compliance, that would be a very difficult level to deal with.
Yes, it is a very unusual delegation to the GIC. Again, our thought was that there are lower fine levels in the act to point to by section number other than the $5,000 level and not leave it to, again, that delegation down to the Governor in Council.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
The last part of paragraph (f.02) is clear: “…or of the regulations made under paragraph (f.01)”. That would enable the government to determine appropriate penalties.
We currently want to maintain the existing provisions until the government makes new regulations. It seems to me that a consultation process should be required in order to establish new regulations, but no one has been consulted to date. The government proceeded in secret, without being transparent. It tabled Bill C-47, and fines of up to $5 million were suddenly imposed on industry people.
For the moment, no one has demonstrated that the industry was as recalcitrant as was said. The Auditor General's report made it clear that Health Canada was unable to perform its duty to inspect. I imagine Health Canada would be in a better position to do so in the context of the discussions on the cost recovery regulations.
Amendment BQ-3 would clearly make it possible to proceed with consultations for the purpose of developing appropriate regulations for natural health products. That requires discipline, of course. Fines of $5,000 may not be enough.
The amendment clearly states: “…within the meaning of the Natural Health Products Regulations or of the regulations made under paragraph (f.01)”.
Fines may be applicable in the meantime, but they would be the fines provided for under the natural health products regulations currently in force.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Are there any further interventions with respect to BQ-3?
Seeing none, shall BQ-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 4 agreed to)
Shall the title carry?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Congratulations, Mr. Calkins.
Is there any further business?
Dr. Ellis, do you have something?
Conservative
