Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the continual interruptions on the part of members opposite when we try to make a point on behalf of our constituents.
It is was important enough to my constituents to write this letter to me. That member does not want to let me rise in the House and read this letter and show how this amendment has at least in some small way dealt with this concern. That is anti-democratic. It is just one more thing. It is the Liberal way. It is not democratic and it is not what we expect in the House. I become upset when I have this type of an interruption.
The letter goes on to say:
Further, I object that the control of any bioactive components or synthetic analogues of natural herbs by Bill C-7 it will replace criminal sanctions to the herbs themselves.
Health Canada should not be allowed to seize, remove or illegalize safe products from the shelves of distributors or hold them at the border without clear and convincing evidence of a lack of safety or misbranding. Health Canada should bear the burden of proof.
I believe that natural herbs and health supplements do not belong in the Criminal Code. These products should be considered as dietary supplements and regulated as such. Natural substances should not be considered as drugs.
I expect that you will represent my interests and oppose Bill C-7.
We will of course oppose Bill C-7. If this amendment does pass, and I would be surprised if it did not, all it does is put in place a consultation process. There is nothing guaranteeing it will be a valid consultation process but it is certainly a move forward. The onus will be on the government to show that it has consulted.
If we as an opposition party ask the government to show us it has consulted, it will be forced to at least demonstrate that it has had some consultation with all interested parties.
Other things have happened with this bill; other amendments and really the deletion of one clause I think has been extremely important. I credit my colleague, the member for Macleod, for successfully having clause 3(1) removed. It is certainly an important change to this legislation.
For purposes of this act a substance included in Schedules I, II or III shall be deemed to include any substance;
(a) that is produced, processed or provided by a person who intends that it be introduced into the body of another person for the purpose of producing a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect substantially similar to or greater than that of a substance included in Schedule I, II or III, and that, if so introduced, would produce such a substantially similar or greater effect; or
(b) that is represented or held out to produce, if introduced into a human body, a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect substantially similar to or greater than that of a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
Again I congratulate my colleague for successfully having that clause thrown out. That is a substantial change to this bill and it will help. Unfortunately there are still so many concerns-