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.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Yes, law enforcement has raised that as a concern, that it is being repurposed.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I'm sorry. They raised it as a concern. I understand that, but has it happened?
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Yes.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
If so, please enlighten us. When did it last happen?
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I don't have that detail.
Again, it was a foundation for making the interim order. We did consult with the provinces. We consulted with law enforcement and with the sector, actually. There is support, generally, to make sure that the product can be sold on the market as a natural health product—it's very useful for that—but also that it's not abused. You can't buy it in large quantities. Again, the foundation is in that order.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I understand that part, and I'm sorry to interrupt you. I do understand what the concern is.
My question for you is this: Has this actually happened, or is it a theoretical concern?
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
The interim order we made was not based on a theoretical concern.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Once again, here we are. We've been down this road with respect to natural health products many times.
Sir, this is not directed to be specifically negative toward you, but what we hear are these thinly veiled ideas that say, “Yes, this has happened,” but not one person has been able to give specific evidence or table it with this committee, nor has there been a desire, sadly, among the other members of this committee to have that information tabled for consideration. I think that's irresponsible of everybody who's raised a concern here.
We heard another group that said it had 700 adverse events. One of the adverse events it named was somebody reading a label wrongly and being dissatisfied with the product they had. Is that an adverse event? I don't think so.
Again, as I've said previously, 13,000 Canadian seniors are hospitalized every year because of prescription products. Does that mean they're bad? No. Does that mean we need to gut the regulations related to prescription drugs? I don't think so, but it might.
Now, here we are again. We're left with somebody saying, “I think there's been a report, or maybe there has been, and I don't know what the report is.” Nobody's showing it to me. Do you have it with you? Can you bring it up on your phone? Can you distribute it to the committee?
If you have that, it's appropriate here because once again, Mr. Naqvi, in his lack of preparedness, has foisted upon the committee a substantive amendment, which might be important for the safety of Canadians, but it might not be.
How could we possibly be expected to make a decision? If this is that important an amendment—once again, Mr. Naqvi should have done his homework—he should have submitted an amendment like everybody else around this table did. What do we have once again? Oh, this is a subamendment.
Chair, there is another thing I would ask you to consider. If this is that substantive a subamendment that it changes the original intent of the amendment, is it really admissible? That's a very significant thing to consider here, because we have not had any evidence provided to the committee to make an appropriate decision with respect to pseudoephedrine.
There's a difficulty for us as good legislators sitting around the table, especially given the fact that we're in the midst of a study here at the health committee on drugs and drug use within this country. We understand the difficulties associated therein. Certainly, we want to be cautious. I understand that. We can't reduce the risk to zero. The difficulty here, though, is we have a substantive amendment that's unsubstantiated.
The other part we need to understand clearly is that if this amendment fails to pass, do you have the ability under the Food and Drugs Act to make amendments outside of this particular bill, Bill C-368? Is there an ability to make amendments outside of Bill C-368 to protect Canadians from the potential diversion of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, whether it be from prescription, over-the-counter or natural health products?
Do you have that ability? Answer yes or no, but you don't have to just answer yes or no; you can expand on it, if you so desire.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Mr. Chair, just to clarify, the hypothetical is if we did not have the supplementary rules order in play, would we be able to address the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and, potentially, other substances? The answer is not in the way we have in the interim order.
We could try to make the interim order again, but again, that lasts a year. It really is reserved for situations of very high-level emergency. Here, we thought it was justified.
Again, it is important to find a stable solution for this, and that really was the most fitting from an instrument point of view.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Through you, Chair, what you're telling this committee is if Bill C-368, which was brought forward by my colleague, didn't exist, there would be no other way for your department to address pseudoephedrine or ephedrine getting into the wrong hands. Is that what you're telling me?
I'm sorry. I don't believe that, but if that's what you're telling me, that's what you're telling me.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
I'm not sure that's what I said, Mr. Chair. What we did was try to create the best solution we could.
Again, the natural health product could be out there on the shelves. We're not interfering with it as a legitimate product. We didn't want to do that. All the rule does—it's quite simple—is say to make sure that somebody doesn't show up and buy a whole crate of it and walk off when it's not for personal use.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Lee, again, I'll interrupt you. We understand that portion of it.
My point is if Bill C-368 did not exist.... I'm sorry. You've known that Bill C-368 has existed for some time, and I'm supposed to believe today that a substantive amendment brought forward by Mr. Naqvi with respect to this very specific but important problem would not have been able to be addressed anywhere else.
I'm also supposed to believe that he thought this up between Tuesday and today and that it shouldn't have been brought forward as an amendment on its own. Is that what I'm supposed to believe? I don't believe it.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Mr. Chair, again, to be precise, I don't think I was conclusive at all on not being able to do it another way. I think the deliberation was...and again, the supplementary rules order works against an unintended use. We approve with an intended use. This is an abuse that goes beyond that. It was an instrument specially created for that. It also works for the nicotine replacement products.
The theme of each of these products is really that it's being used in a way or presented in a way that's not the intended use. That was the departmental thinking: that was the best way to solve it. It doesn't say there's not another way, but that was the best way to solve it.
November 28th, 2024 / 5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Again, just for clarity, is there another way, besides interfering with the passage of Bill C-368, that the department could deal with the issue of unintended diversion of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine from prescription, over-the-counter or natural health product sources?
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
It's something I couldn't conclude right now, Mr. Chair. It's something we would have to examine: what alternate ways. Again, because the way we did do it is both through an interim order, which has limitations, but then also with the supplemental rules, alternate ways would need to be examined. Again, making an instrument takes a lot of deliberation, even if it's a Governor in Council proposal.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Through you, Chair, though, what you just said was that basically—for the benefit of Canadians—changing the rules is very difficult.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Mr. Chair, I think what I'm trying to indicate is that the production of methamphetamine is a very important problem for the department and Canadians. We put a tool in place. It mitigates that risk. The other benefit is that it allows the natural health product to still be sold, so it's a very well-tailored instrument to use.
That's really the departmental thinking, and the supplemental rules set-up actually allows for that balance between availability, still, and making sure that abuse doesn't occur. That's really what I think the intention is of the instrument.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
If you continued down the same road the department is on at the current time and renewed the supplemental rules you have, that's also a possibility. Is it true?
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
As a legislative proposal once again? Is that what you're saying?
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
That would be the will of Parliament.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
If this particular subamendment, which, again, is substantive, were defeated here, there's no reason that the will of Parliament could not be used to renew the supplemental rules to which you've already alluded.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
I think, Mr. Chair, that's beyond me to answer. I'm an official with technical advice. That goes into parliamentary opportunity and procedure.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
It's really the will of Parliament to do that, but absolutely it could be done.
Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
If you're talking about placing something in the Food and Drugs Act, yes, that's the process.