We have some concerns with the amendment that Mr. Thériault has presented. The amendment would revoke all Vanessa's Law authorities for NHPs to manage serious health and safety risks, with the exception of the minister's ability to order a recall. Other authorities, including the supplementary rules authority that would allow Health Canada to take action on pseudoephedrine, would be revoked.
For example, it would allow the minister to direct a label change if an NHP is deemed to pose a serious risk to the environment but not if an NHP poses a serious risk to human health. That clearly does not make any sense. While we all agree that the ability to order a recall is an important tool, this amendment would not extend to other measures that can be used to address serious issues, such as the ability to apply to a court to impose an injunction, or to direct label or packaging changes when serious risks are identified. The injunction authority in particular is a critical power to deal proactively with cases of non-compliance, allowing the courts to direct a person to stop an action that contravenes the act. In addition, the effectiveness of the recall power relies on having an appropriate fines and penalties regime to ensure compliance.
We have heard from Health Canada officials that $5,000 is too low. For some large businesses, this is just the cost of doing business. While we understand that concerns that the maximum fine for therapeutic products is too high for NHPs, we are proposing to apply the maximum fine for food products to NHPs. This strikes a balance between a meaningful fines and penalties regime and recognizing that NHPs are distinct from prescription products.
I also want to emphasize that we think it's important for Parliament to determine appropriate fines and penalties, rather than have the Governor in Council determine this without parliamentary oversight. I would hope that all my colleagues would agree with that principle.
The subamendment that I have proposed would preserve the most essential authorities needed by the minister to protect health and safety in the most serious circumstances. This includes the authority for the minister to direct a label or package change, which is in section 21.2; the authority for a court to impose injunctions, which is in section 21.5, in relation to a recall; and the authorities that have been recently used to strictly regulate nicotine replacement therapies, which are contained in section 30.01. We firmly believe that these authorities are essential to address serious health and safety issues when they emerge.
This subamendment would also preserve tougher fines and penalties for contraventions of a recall or supplementary rules order. It proposes to use the fines and penalties named under section 31.1—the penalties used for food, not therapeutic products, as I mentioned a moment ago. It also includes the authority for a court to issue injunctions with respect to a contravention of a recall order. Fines and penalties for all other contraventions of regulatory requirements would return to the lower levels prior to Vanessa's Law.
Finally, the subamendment that I propose to BQ-2 is also to achieve the intent of BQ-3. We have added a provision that sets out what offence provisions apply to a contravention of the recall order, and a reference is added to the regulation-making power for recall in paragraph 30(1.2)(f) so that it applies to NHPs.
I wanted to present that to you and have that on the record.
I recognize that the subamendment has a lot of provisions, but it is very much in keeping with the amendment presented by Mr. Thériault, just ensuring that it covers the breadth and scope of the authorities that are given to the minister as they relate to nicotine replacement therapies. That's the extent of it.
I'll stop here, Chair. I do have some questions for the experts to help understand, for the benefit of all members, the intent behind this subamendment. If you're okay with that, I can pose those questions to the experts as well.