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.