I actually think that we're even conflating the issues. If we're asking if the existing powers in the Food and Drugs Act are too broad, I would say they are, because there's a real danger with a regulatory authority that is there for drug approval having any powers that would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, which is based on a completely different set of information and with a different purpose.
The minister already has powers that are too extensive for the purpose. My difficulty with the minister and with Health Canada messaging—that this is to protect youth from nicotine and this is to allow for any shortages from baby formula, which is an emotional issue—is that it's not what this is about. The minister already has powers to address that, and none of these powers address this. This is so the government can be exempt from any liability during the next pandemic if we have to rush through a treatment and so as to basically ensure that there's no messaging on or promotion of off-label use. Whether or not that is a good idea, and whether or not these powers are appropriate for that purpose, that purpose at least should be publicly identified and then a conversation on that.... My concern is that we're not even having an honest conversation.
You're asking me about off-label use. Doctors are not promoting nicotine patches to youth. We're basically talking about black when we should be talking about white. That's the concern, and that's why I use strong language. How do we address whether or not these powers are appropriate for their real purpose if we're not having an honest discussion about why they're really there?