Did you mean all three amendments?
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.
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
Adopt the Bloc amendments and report the bill back to the House with those amendments.
Is there any objection to that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
There is objection to that.
We're back on the motion presented by Mr. Naqvi and next on the list is Mr. Calkins.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank my colleague, Dr. Ellis, for his accurate assessment. I wish I could say I found it passing strange, Mr. Chair, but I've been in this place for a long time, as have you and as has the member for the New Democratic Party. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point by anything at all.
You would think, Mr. Chair, that a member of a political party that found itself in a situation where it accepted carte blanche everything that the minority government was going to do would be a little more gracious when offered a path to redemption on the issue of being able to rescind the clauses in Bill C-47, which Bill C-368 seeks to do. You would think that a member for the NDP would be gracious in accepting a path to redemption for his proposed amendment to this bill, which would have changed this bill in its entirety. Instead of accusing people of filibustering, you'd think he would have been gracious and said thank you for buying him the time to figure out that he was once again wrong, as he, I would argue, Mr. Chair, often is.
I appreciate the fact that he is now going to need unanimous consent, I believe, Mr. Chair, in order to withdraw his amendment. I'm just musing publicly on whether I should be as gracious as he has been to me in giving him that or whether I should actually say no and make him vote against his own amendment. That would be the fun thing to do, Mr. Chair, but I'll be the bigger person in this.
Hopefully, we will get to the point where we can withdraw NDP-1 and do the right thing on behalf of the industry that relies on getting this legislation and these regulations right and the 80% of Canadians who rely on natural health products.
I will enjoy taking the higher road.
Thank you, Chair.
Liberal
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are currently discussing Mr. Naqvi's motion, and I find it very galling for the Liberals to introduce such an amendment.
We wouldn't be discussing Bill C‑368 if the government had been transparent in the first place, and if it hadn't hidden Bill C‑47 in an omnibus bill, a mammoth bill, without partnering with industry. That isn't how we get things done in politics. We're here because there's been an attempt to give the industry a raw deal.
However, there was an intention behind that. It was to tighten up the rules and the legislative framework to ensure that bad actors or bad apples would be pushed out of the industry or that they paid for their bad reputations and actions that don't meet industry standards. That's why we need to get it right.
Remember, Mr. Chairman, that at one point, we had to have the minister and Health Canada officials appear before our committee to explain what was going on with the regulations. It wasn't even a study; it was a request. They came to give us explanations, and we realized that, with respect to the regulatory framework they wanted to create, particularly with regard to recovery costs, they were completely wrong. In fact, this meant that the model established for pharmaceutical products would be transposed into a natural health products model.
Whether the Liberals like Bill C‑368 or not, it's necessary. The basis of Bill C‑368 is necessary to create another legislative and regulatory environment for natural health products. That's what we're trying to do here, and that's what my amendments are trying to achieve, which is to strike a balance with respect to the interests of an industry. We don't want to destroy this industry because of a few bad actors. This pertains much more to small or medium-sized businesses than very large ones.
It was illogical and inconsistent to simply transpose the pharmaceutical model to another for natural health products. But we were good sports and we proposed amendments. People told us that they didn't want to question the basis of Bill C‑368, but they maintained that we were contravening the ministerial order, which had allowed us to replace nicotine products that aren't properly regulated, once again, because Health Canada did a bad job. We were told that there was a legal vacuum and that we shouldn't do that because it would give free rein to bad actors.
Those people came to warn us about the unintended consequence of Bill C‑368, and we listened to them. We proposed an amendment. I'm going to correct it again today, because people think we need to distinguish between nicotine-based products that are used as nicotine replacement therapy and tomatoes, cauliflower and eggplants. We received thousands and thousands of emails telling us to be careful when we say that a product contains nicotine. Vegetables and fruits contain nicotine. I'd have had to eat 10 kilos of eggplant today to reach the nicotine content of one cigarette.
Still in the spirit of calming things down and listening to everyone's comments, we changed the amendment in question to add clarification and ensure that Parliament's intent wasn't misunderstood.
What we're doing here today is paying attention to what people told us.
Industry representatives told us that they wanted to preserve its reputation. However, it doesn't make sense to impose fines of $5 million on the pharmaceutical industry, as planned. This explains our third amendment to Bill C‑368. This amendment will allow for discussions to establish the regulatory framework for appropriate fines.
That's what the government should have done. It should have had a proper discussion with people instead of trying to pull the wool over their eyes with an omnibus bill. That's not the way to do politics. Today, we're proposing a motion to, supposedly, amend Bill C‑368, on which there is a consensus on this side of the table, so that it can be passed in the House of Commons. However, this is a dilatory measure, but not in the way you understand it. The intent is to delay passage of Bill C‑368. We'll end up with a bill that we know full well won't pass the House in its current version.
For those reasons, I agree with Mr. Ellis. If the Liberals are acting in good faith, if they really listened to the people who came to testify and if they saw the turpitude of Health Canada, they'd do things differently. Witnesses told us they had evidence that the methodologies used are totally biased. Saying that 88% of an industry and over 900 companies aren't compliant is an aberration. They would fail a methodology 101 university course.
Personally, I'm not here to waste my time, but to find points of convergence and a balance so that everyone can benefit. Consumers need to regain their confidence in natural health products, and imposing an established pharmaceutical model isn't going to do that.
I hope that I've convinced my colleagues opposite to proceed with the study of Bill C‑368.
Finally, if I may, I move adjournment of the debate on the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The motion to adjourn debate is a dilatory motion. It is not debatable.
(Motion agreed to)
(On clause 1)
We will move to clause-by-clause now.
The chair calls clause 1, and when we adjourned last week, we were at NDP-1.
Mr. Julian would like to speak to that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
A motion to withdraw an amendment requires unanimous consent.
Is it the will of the committee to withdraw NDP-1?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
It is not. The only way to get rid of NDP-1 is to bring it to a vote and defeat it.
We have Mr. Julian, please.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, I've worked on lots of committees over the years. I have never seen a member actually deny unanimous consent, because part of the committee process is to be able to amend and at times withdraw amendments that are put forward. This is the first time in 20 years that I've seen this kind of tactic. It's unfortunate. I will be voting against this amendment in favour of BQ-2.
I notified committee last Monday about this, and I'm quite frankly surprised and very disappointed that any member would deny unanimous consent to withdraw, because in all of the legislation I've done over the years, that's never happened.
November 28th, 2024 / 4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's really a frustrating space that we're in, and I appreciate the fact that we're trying to get rid of this wrecking amendment. I know my office had thousands of emails come in. We had our phone ringing off the hook with calls from Canadians who were worried about losing their natural health supplements.
One of the more interesting ones is that a woman wrote to me saying that this is so problematic and that it would shut down businesses like hers. This is the big reason she took a step back in her herbal business. She shared that this also greatly affects indigenous medicine keepers and their ability to use their inherent right to medicine. This came from a very proud Métis woman.
I think that this goes to show how problematic this bill was, and so I'm happy that my colleague from the NDP has finally come to see that the amendment he put forward was going to ruin the bill and was going to return us to the space that the Liberals so carelessly brought us into when they decided to completely wreck this industry without so much as consulting with the industry or any stakeholders on this.
However, what can we expect? This is a government that thinks they are above any set of rules. They have no capacity to manage their own time or space. They see everything out of control, and it's evident here in this committee, even in the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health tried to extend the deadline on this, because he was so afraid of Canadians getting to have the right to their supplements.
We, on this side of the House and on this side of the table very clearly believe that Canadians have the right to make those choices and that Canadians who choose to use natural health products should be allowed to continue making those choices. The very common-sense bill from my colleague Mr. Calkins absolutely will do a good thing in bringing back that space of freedom and hopefully improve the outlook for women like the one I heard from, who said she took a step back in her business because of that omnibus bill that didn't have any conversation or actual oversight. They did this intentionally to be away from any scrutiny.
I am happy that we might be able to get to a space where we can reverse the damage that these Liberals have done.
Thank you.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Chair, I just want to make a point clear on Mrs. Goodridge's point. Mr. Naqvi wanted an extension in case the bill was not finished today. We can go as fast as we can, but if by chance we didn't finish clause-by-clause, then we would not have a situation where the bill is referred back to the House unamended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Are there any further interventions with respect to NDP-1?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to BQ-1. BQ-1 was proposed since our last meeting. It has the identifier 13454222, just so that we know we're talking about the same thing.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The identifier is 13454222, and it says on the top of it, I believe, “new/nouveau BQ-1”. That is what is next, should Mr. Thériault choose to move it.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor on amendment BQ‑1.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be brief.
The only natural health products that will be included in the definition of therapeutic products will be those that contain nicotine and are used for nicotine replacement therapy. This is similar to what we had proposed, but this amendment makes Parliament's intention very clear.
People were worried that it would also affect chamomile, since it's said to contain nicotine. However, as far as we know, Health Canada never intended to issue warnings about fruits and vegetables. We proposed this amendment so that everyone could support the bill.
It's very clear that therapeutic health products are drugs or devices, or any combination of them, as well as natural health products that contain nicotine and are used for nicotine replacement therapy.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
BQ-1 is now before us. I must advise the committee that if this amendment is adopted, CPC-1 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
I recognize Mr. Calkins next on BQ-1.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank the mover of the amendment for bringing it forward. I just want to say on the record, and repeat what I said when I appeared before the committee as the sponsor of the bill, that my preference would be that this particular item be dealt with separately and that this product be dealt with under different laws and regulations.
However, given the fact that I don't think this side of the table can be confident that the government side of the table would know how to do that appropriately, this seems to be the most reasonable solution.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, it is not with regret but with frustration, I think, that we will be voting in favour of this amendment because the government has simply not figured out the difference between health products and things that are not natural health products, and we have no reason to believe that they ever will.
As I said, it would be my preference not to handle it in this way, but because this issue does, I believe, need to be handled in some manner, it is a reluctant vote of approval for this amendment from myself as the sponsor of the bill.
