Health Committee on Nov. 28th, 2024

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Yes.

I think what we've heard from Mr. Lee is that these changes are difficult. Obviously, this NDP-Liberal government has not made these changes for some reason, and again have waited until the 11th hour to attempt to subamend an amendment inside a bill that is not their own in order to regulate problems that they can't see fit to regulate themselves out of, which I find absolutely difficult to believe.

Chair, I would suggest to you that this is a substantive amendment because of the fact that an entire department can't see its way to regulate out of this, and it would take some time. It would take an act of Parliament.

Here in this committee, we are expected to accept the subamendment as not being substantive, deliberate on it without any prior warning and then make a decision that an entire government department cannot make in several years. If that's not the definition of a substantive amendment or subamendment, I don't know what is.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Goodridge, go ahead, please.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very concerned about the use of ephedrine when it comes to a chemical precursor. It devastates communities. I've seen it right across my riding and in rural communities across the country.

This triggers some thought bubbles in my head related to something we haven't studied as we've been looking at our study of the addiction crisis here at our health committee. We probably need to look more at these chemical precursors. What I'm hearing is that we don't have the tools at our disposal. We're looking at potentially adding one possible tool to deal with one substance, but I don't think that's enough to deal with chemical precursors when it comes to fentanyl or other things. We need to be doing everything we possibly can if we want to take steps in the right direction on the addiction crisis.

The part I have frustration with is that we're being....

Mr. Lee, I have no reason to doubt your sincerity in bringing this information forward. What I question is that we haven't heard this as a concern up until this point. Mr. Naqvi has known for a long time that this bill is before this committee. He chose not to bring forward any amendments, but decided instead to subamend when he realized this was going to be a problem. It didn't give us an opportunity to consult with any witnesses to see whether this does what you guys say it does. While I would like to trust you, I don't. Canadians don't trust this government, especially when it comes to natural health products. We heard that very clearly. My office has received thousands of emails and hundreds of phone calls. This is something that is too serious to trust, in the eleventh hour, that a very large, substantive amendment is going to cover it.

For that reason, I have to vote against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to be brief.

It seems to me the precursors issue could be resolved under the precursor control regulations or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The only reason this issue is suddenly being raised, as the minister has done, is to counteract the dynamic of Bill C-368, since he knows the Standing Committee on Health is studying the overdose issue.

If Health Canada does a proper job, I'd like to think it might suggest a way to address that issue within another legislative framework, such as the two I just mentioned. I don't think this subamendment would solve the problem. It's inadmissible because it's a substantive, not formal, amendment. All the explanations that have been provided prove that. We can also solve the problem in a different way.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I'm looking forward to the vote.

I know that Mr. Naqvi can keep on talking, but it seems to me that a problem that can be solved in a different way and that should have been solved before now shouldn't necessarily prevent us from moving forward. You can't include all the concerns that anyone may have in a single amendment simply because the bill under study doesn't currently cover a certain aspect. And by the way, the subamendment isn't very clear for the moment.

This aspect is already covered by other pieces of legislation such as the precursor control regulations and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That act clearly provides that it covers every substance that can be used to manufacture drugs. If something's missing, we need only amend it.

If my understanding is correct, an interim order made to address this problem must be renewed. I therefore propose that it be renewed and that Bill C‑368 be adopted. If the government is seeking a long-term solution, it will amend the related acts and regulations.

I encourage Mr. Naqvi to withdraw his amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Naqvi, go ahead, please.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm not going to take too long. I have no intent of belabouring this debate, but there are a few important issues that came up that are important to address.

What I've been hearing clearly from the officials is that we cannot use other laws on precursors since this is a health product. In other cases, we would have to take the product off the shelves and regulate it as a controlled substance.

In the current context, this problem doesn't exist because we have Vanessa's Law. This gap only comes into play because of the bill that Mr. Calkins has presented. Otherwise, there's no issue because we do have a law on the books that gives Health Canada the appropriate authority to deal with this matter.

Now we find ourselves at a juncture with the amendments that are being suggested by Mr. Thériault that create that gap. The purpose behind the subamendment that I have proposed is to narrow that gap so that we don't run into it. It's a remedial step that I'm taking.

I'd rather not have Bill C-368, as we've stated before, because we think it's a bad law. It creates precisely the kind of issues that we are trying to address now by way of a band-aid mechanism.

Now, Mr. Ellis loves to throw insults left, right and centre at all of his colleagues without any parliamentary respect. He's entitled to do whatever. He'll be judged by them or his loved ones on the manner in which he treats them. I won't stoop to his level.

He often talks about lack of preparation. Perhaps he should have done his homework. The interim order he says is not available is on Health Canada's website. He can find it. He can read it. It has lots of footnotes. I've read it. I don't know why he did not do his homework, but I leave it to him as to how he manages his time.

I'll just put this on the record. In the interim order it says:

Canadian law enforcement agencies have brought to Health Canada’s attention that they have found single-ingredient ephedrine NHPs, in particular authorized 8 mg ephedrine formulations, in clandestine laboratories that manufacture methamphetamine.

That information is available.

To Mr. Thériault, I'm not trying to be too cute by half here or trying to do a run-in. I'm merely trying to strengthen his amendment.

If Mr. Julian had not withdrawn his amendment, NDP-1, this problem would not exist, because that had actually managed that particular gap. Now that is gone. That's why I'm forced to present this subamendment for consideration, so that we can further bolster and strengthen Mr. Thériault's amendment.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, Mr. Naqvi is an experienced parliamentarian. He knows what the amendment deadline was, and he knows he could have submitted that amendment at any time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's not a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Naqvi.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm presenting an amendment to an amendment. It's tabled. My spirit is simply that.

We've heard from the officials that we are not taking away from Mr. Thériault's amendment. It makes it better. It strengthens it. There are a few gaps that have arisen as a result of that amendment. What my subamendment is doing is eliminating those gaps so that the true intent of his amendment, if passed, can actually take appropriate force.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Naqvi.

Mr. Thériault is the next speaker on the list. However, I must inform you that our resources will be available only until 6:22 p.m.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I still haven't received the text of the subamendment in writing. I want to have it in writing. I don't understand why we still don't have it.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

I don't either.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

We've been discussing it for some time. Why haven't we received the text of the subamendment yet?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

It was emailed at 5:01 p.m.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

When you email something while we're deliberating, it might be a good idea to inform us of the fact. That's the least that can be done. I have to request that a paper version be sent to us every time someone tables a motion or amendment. We work from paper copies now.

I don't want to prolong matters because that counts against my team, but it seems to me there was enough time to print the document while we were discussing it. It facilitates matters. If we don't have a written text, we have to work with several screens at the same time; we have to use the telephone and so on. That's not how we should be working. Could we please be more rigorous?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We're in the process of preparing a paper copy. Do you want us to suspend or continue?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, I'm asking that we suspend. I'll present my comments once I have a hard copy of the text.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right. The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Upon reading the subamendment, I see that we're stepping back from what we discussed earlier, particularly the fact that Mr. Julian withdrew his amendment.

Consequently, I'm just going to vote against the subamendment; that's all. We can go to the vote as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I've tried to understand the rationale provided by the mover of the subamendment. I, too, am frustrated, because on the surface, this appears to be well thought out and substantive enough that it should have been in the original package of amendments, not moved as a subamendment.

Mr. Ellis intimated whether or not this subamendment is actually in order because it substantially changes the nature of the original amendment. I don't know if you have decided, Mr. Chair, that the amendment is in order.

I find it passing strange that the rationale and justification for doing this are somehow to help law enforcement, which usually relies on things like the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to do its job. Given the fact that there is a renewable interim order in place to already deal with these precursors, I think this is another attempt to play politics with the industry. I don't think this is the right place to be dealing with precursors for drugs. They should be in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code.

You're asking the natural health products industry and the consumers of those natural health products to take on the responsibility of preventing organized crime. That's the responsibility of the police and law enforcement agencies. It's the responsibility of the government to make sure that adequate provisions are in place in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This is criminal. We're talking about criminal behaviour here and in the Criminal Code of Canada.

For those reasons, Mr. Chair, I believe this may be disguised as a well-intentioned effort, but it's missed its mark insofar as where it needs to be addressed, and I'll be voting against the subamendment.