Evidence of meeting #37 for Health in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you very much.
Thank you to both Ms. Godard and Ms. O'Connor for your valuable input.
I will suspend the meeting for two minutes. The legislative clerk will take a seat here so that we can go clause by clause.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I will call the meeting back to order.
I would like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.
As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and to a vote.
If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member received from the clerk.
In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.
During the debate on the amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.
Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.
I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-224.
Now I will call clause 1. Shall the...?
Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I have a question, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify the process.
If we're done with this bill today, in whatever form it ends up, is it then reported to the House, and how quickly does that happen? Would we be voting on it tomorrow? What is the process here?
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
No. Once it's done in this place and it goes back to the House in whatever form, how quickly does it happen in the House?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
It's as quickly as the clerk is ready for me to present it when we come back.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Again, I want to be clear. In clause-by-clause consideration, if a party introduces an amendment, is there not room for discussion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
There is room for discussion. Any amendment is open for debate, and once there are no more speakers, it will go to a vote.
Conservative
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you very much. I think some of my Conservative colleagues may also have comments.
Clause 1 in particular, much like the rest of this bill, is setting up the whole reason that the natural health products industry has felt under attack over the last number of years. They've repeatedly said, as has been said at this committee in the past and as the world has recognized Canada as a leading national health product regulator, that natural health products are distinct from pharmaceutical drugs or therapeutics, or whatever you'd like to call them.
Again, clause 1 is to ensure that this clear distinction remains. Conservatives support a robust regulatory regime, as we have had in Canada for natural health products, and I'm proud that a few decades ago, this committee set the standard for Canada that led the world. This bill and this clause are an effort to maintain the integrity of that unique distinction. National health products are not food and they're not pharmaceutical drugs.
That is the goal of this bill: to stop the erosion of that distinction over the last three years by the Liberal government, whether it's associating them with therapeutic products—which is language we've heard—whether it's trying to ensure that their labelling is the same as the labelling for pharmaceutical drugs when natural health products have been clearly distinguished as unique, proportionate and risk-based, or whether it's the Liberal government's attempt at cost recovery comparable with the pharmaceutical industry, which would, of course, bankrupt much of the natural health product industry in Canada.
It's not only about Vanessa's Law in the sense of associating them with therapeutic drugs for recall purposes. It's the whole picture of what has been transpiring in the Liberal government over the last three years to erode the distinct nature of natural health products in favour of governing them and regulating them like therapeutic drugs and pharmaceutical drugs.
That's why clause 1 is so important. We're very proud to have brought this bill forward in defence of the industry.
Again, just to be clear, I feel that there's been a lot of misleading content at this committee, perhaps not purposely, that makes it seem as though natural health products are not regulated. They are heavily regulated. We heard that today from Health Canada. They are regulated. Strict labelling requirements existed before 2023. We're very proud that we had a strict regulation scheme in Canada for them, and that should continue, but natural health products should not be associated with pharmaceutical drugs.
Again, I just want to make that case for clause 1. If this clause and this bill do not pass, that erosion of natural health products as distinct in regulation from pharmaceuticals will continue.
I also wanted to make the case that the Conservatives have not made a case against recall. What we've made the case against is classifying them alongside therapeutics.
Bloc
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I want to be clear on the process. Amendments were submitted, and I want to know where we're at. I want to understand what we're doing right now, because I have an amendment to the first clause I'd like to propose. What's the process?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Madame Gaudreau, there's clause 1, and then after that there will be a new clause 1.1, which is your clause. Right now the Conservatives are speaking to clause 1, and they have every right to speak. Until I get a vote on that one, I will not be able to go to yours.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Yes, but my understanding is that before we vote on it, any proposed amendments have to be moved, debated and voted on.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
It's not my intention to go on forever, but I do recognize that this is going to come to a vote. If this clause fails to pass, and I am concerned that it will not pass, it's important that what's at stake for the natural health product industry is clear. We are hearing loud and clear that if this bill does not pass and this erosion continues, it will be very dire, particularly for Canadian natural health product companies.
I just want to make very clear the importance of the thousands of letters and emails and the campaign that has been led by the natural health product industry, and the importance of those products to the millions of Canadians who take them. This bill is important, and that unique distinction from therapeutics should remain. That's why Conservatives have put this forward in clause 1 and will be voting in favour of it as it stands.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you.
If there are no more speakers, I'll take a vote.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Chair, I thought it was clear that I would be given the floor to propose my amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Yours is a new clause, clause 1.1. I will come to it right after this vote. As soon as I get the vote on this one, I will go to the new clause 1.1, which is Bloc Québécois amendment BQ-1.
Please take the vote.