Bill C-368

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products)

This enactment amends the Food and Drugs Act to provide that certain natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of that Act and therefore not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Once again, I find it fascinating that for the benefit of Canadians out there watching, it is important to understand why a wrecking motion, as we call it colloquially here in the Ottawa bubble, cannot be allowed to continue forward.

Is this a Conservative-proposed bill? Yes, it is a Conservative-proposed bill, absolutely. In the original format that was proposed, it was to say that a natural health product cannot be considered a therapeutic product.

What we have seen from Mr. Julian is that clearly he wants natural health products to be considered therapeutic products, which is in direct contravention of the drafter of the bill.

As we look at some of the products that will be affected by this, we see that we had a great testimony from a practitioner of Chinese medicine named Pierre Chen, who was here at the last meeting. He has a school in Mississauga where he teaches traditional Chinese medicine. He is also a Harvard graduate. His father has been a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine for decades and provides care to thousands of individuals in the Mississauga area.

Maybe Mr. Julian hasn't taken the time to actually visit businesses that will be directly impacted by this bill. What I heard when I took the time to go visit Mr. Chen is that for the vast majority of his products, even if the definition of therapeutic product were applied to natural health products, it might not make that much of a change to the overall cost of the actual natural health products because they were frequently used and prescribed by traditional Chinese medicine practitioners.

What he did make clear, though, was that a smaller fraction of substances would be significantly impacted because they were not prescribed or used often. The cost of these would go from approximately $30 to $50 for a large-sized supply to $1,500 for a large-sized supply. That would mean that for those folks who have the opportunity to use those products, it would certainly have a significantly negative effect on their ability to pay for those products.

As that difficulty continued and the labelling requirements also were then applied to natural health products, what we also know is that the labelling requirements would become unnecessarily burdensome. Indeed, I liken it to when I went to visit a distribution centre for McKesson, which is one of the largest medication distributors in Canada. I had an opportunity to visit their facility as well.

You clearly see that when these bottles of medication are picked and these large, floppy, accordion-style plastic-laden labels are stuck to the side of a bottle by glue, two things will happen.

First of all, the accordion-style label will “unaccordion” itself. That's perhaps not a word, but it's descriptive of what will happen. It unravels, becomes floppy and will gum up the machines because a bottle of product with a label with a long floppy tail of plastic hanging off of it is not designed to be picked up.

The other very negative thing that will happen is that when it has unravelled, it will come off the bottle. Not only then do you have a large floppy tail with glue on it flopping around inside machinery, but then you have the glue there as well. Of course, that will, in the vernacular, gum up the system and everything then comes to a crashing halt.

These large, accordion-style plastic labels start to have this downward effect when you require companies to put this labelling on.

I think the other sad thing is that inside the natural health product industry, there is an obvious ability to begin to use novel ways of labelling, such as QR codes.

QR codes, especially in an industry that has a very low likelihood of harm.... I'll come to the products that are mainly prescribed and used by individuals in Canada soon, but when you have an industry that has a low degree of harm, it's an obvious move to move away from printed labels with tiny, tiny print. I know that certainly as I reach a certain age, it becomes more difficult to read that tiny print. It would make only good sense to ask if this industry would be interested in trialing those low-risk medications with QR codes. What would that enable?

Now, there will be people out there who will argue that not everybody has a phone to scan a QR code. I understand that; however, that being said, this is an opportunity to begin to trial QR codes in unique, low-risk environments that would allow those who have the technological ability to scan a QR code to begin to ask about transitioning prescription products to a QR code as an ultimate goal?

Now, again, as many of you know, the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties, the CPS, is a large dictionary-like tome with tiny print that lists all the known side effects of prescription medications, not just those that are common or that those are serious. Generally speaking, the CPS is not available to the general public but is often accessed by health care professionals. Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to take that amount of information, add it to a QR code and allow people to access it so they could be better informed? I would suggest that a better-informed populace is able to make even better decisions on behalf of themselves and their family members to say what is going to suit their needs.

I think the other huge benefit with QR codes, as we are a varied nation with varied backgrounds, cultural practices and languages, is that QR codes would be not only easy to update with respect to the information that is available to the consumer, to the patient, but also with respect to the language in which it is presented. We did hear, whether it's true or not, from the ISMP group that reading labels presented a challenge to people, and that this was one of the reasons for a potential adverse event.

I don't know, because I don't have that information. It would appear that ISMP doesn't want to provide it until Mr. Julian has attempted to gut Bill C-368.

Once we receive that information, we will be able to clarify whether it's a language disability or an inability to read English, for instance, or perhaps French. I don't know, because I don't have that data, but that would be interesting to know.

Again, if we had the data to make our decisions upon, it would be interesting to know if a new and unique solution on a trial basis was able to take not only English but any language and provide it to folks who had the ability to access it, such that practitioners who sold natural health products had that ability to say, “Hey, you know what? I understand that English is not your first language, but if you were able to scan a QR code or find a family member who is able to scan this for you, you could read the indications, the potential side effects, whether they are serious or whether they are minor but frequent, and you could then access those in your native language.”

I believe that it would be an incredibly unique and useful situation to be able to look at it and, again, I will say that it's an incredibly low-risk segment of the market for Canadians to be able to say that this is what they would like to see on a moving forward basis.

Why do we say it's low risk? We believe it's low risk because even though the data is scant, the data that we have been able to receive in the low-risk environment is related to comparisons with other difficult environments, such as prescription drugs.

What we could understand from the fairly recent data is that every single year, approximately 13,000 seniors are admitted to hospital because of prescription drugs. Does that mean that we should tighten up the regulations around prescription drugs? That's not what I'm saying here, but what we need is a significant context with respect to natural health products so that we can understand the safety that is associated with natural health products, and we do understand that 13,000 seniors alone—and as we all know, the definition by Health Canada with this particular study is age 65 and older—have been hospitalized due to the side effects of the prescription medications they are taking.

When we hear this number thrown about of 700 individuals who may have had an adverse effect attributable to a natural health product, without the context it's impossible to know whether this is a serious adverse event or whether it is simply a problem—and again I'll go back to what I heard them say—with reading the label and they got the product that they didn't want and they couldn't get a refund on it. That's certainly not serious, and I'm not convinced that it's an adverse event that is related to a natural health product.

That is why it's incredibly important to have the data that we will not have to be able to complete the study on Bill C-368. It's to say that there's no reason for Mr. Julian to want to have his NDP-1 amendment, which then moves natural health products back into the realm of being a therapeutic product. That is what presents the difficulties here. I think that for Canadians to have that ability to choose what they want is an incredibly important part of society here in Canada.

Whether or not I understand traditional Chinese medicine or somebody else doesn't understand it, that's okay. I don't need to understand it. What I do need to understand is whether it is a sector of the Canadian economy and Canadian health care that people choose to improve or maintain their own health, and whether it is safe. Because of the numbers—even the numbers that we've heard thrown around and the report that Deloitte was able to do on behalf of the natural health product industry—I believe that this is a very safe sector of the health care industry.

One of the things that we did here, Chair, as well, is related to vitamin D and vitamin D overdose. Again, without the substantiation of that particular case, I find it difficult to believe. Why do I find it difficult to believe? It's difficult to believe because many folks would take vitamin D in the dose of a 1,000 international units a day, and that happens very commonly. However, when you look at the science of vitamin D and exposure to sun, if you're out in the sun.... Again, this is not me giving advice to get you out in the sun, but I note, as an important indicator of not having data with respect to this bill, that when you are out there in the sun on a great sunny summer day, you could achieve a level dose of 25,000 international units of vitamin D just from the sun alone on a one-day basis.

Again, we heard Minister Holland here making an egregious claim, without substantiation, that there was an overdose on vitamin D. Minister Holland is not a health care professional. Does he know if it was vitamin D from vitamin C or vitamin B1 or B12? I would suggest to you that he probably does not know that.

Not having the data to substantiate this egregious claim—which was unsubstantiated and unwarranted and cast a shadow and a pall over an entire industry—I think directly points to the need to have data to understand the implications of changing any legislation with respect to natural health products.

We can look at vitamin B12. A long time ago, when I started to practise medicine in Truro, Nova Scotia, we often injected people with vitamin B12 on a weekly basis. What we now know is that if folks who have a B12 deficiency take enough of it orally, by mouth, they don't need to come every week for a vitamin B12 injection. This is if you're B12-deficient.

As we began testing folks for a B12 deficiency, we also realized that many of them were having supraphysiological doses of B12. Getting B12 at the frequency with which it was originally administered was not a requirement.

There are many different vitamins that we know are very safe. When you look at the fat-soluble vitamins, for instance, like vitamins A, D, E and K, that is one particular—

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was saying that the interesting point here is that we have heard from Canadians on two major points with respect to primary health care, and most importantly, they say that they cannot access it. In a system of universal accessibility, they sadly cannot access the system. Therefore, they are required—because they must live—to look after their own health needs. What they have found is that by using natural health products, they are able to promote and to maintain their health, which they freely choose to do in a country based on freedom.

I think the other important point here is that once again Mr. Julian would have us believe that his wrecking motion does not have the intent to wreck this bill. We have clearly heard from the person who created the bill that it does, which creates a significant impasse at the current time.

I think it bears explaining why this is so incredibly important. That's especially in light of the fact that I would directly quote the Prime Minister saying back in 2021 that they were going to bring “7,500...doctors, nurses, and nurse practitioners” to practise here in this country. What we do know, which flies in the face of the misinformed Minister of Health, is that the access to primary care is getting worse.

We heard that testimony here at this committee from the Minister of Health when he was questioned on this very topic, relating to Bill C-368. We heard the minister say very specifically that “access to [primary care] is improving” across this country. It's not funny, but laughable. If you actually talk to the Canadians who have the ability to vote, they know this.

In our offices, we receive messages every single day from Canadians who say that they can't find a family doctor or that their daughter can't find a family doctor. In fact, I had an email today from a constituent who said that this is an appalling situation. It is not only the mother who does not have access to a primary care provider; her daughter, who just had a baby, also does not have a primary care provider, nor does the newborn baby.

As we begin to look at the dastardly situation created by the ineptitude and, unfortunately, the clueless attitude that has been demonstrated here over and over again by the Minister of Health, Canadians have had to turn to looking after themselves because they don't have the support of primary care physicians. I would say it's very likely that many of the claims, which again are unsubstantiated by ISMP, could have been simply mitigated if those individuals were able to speak to a primary care provider.

also I find it interesting, as we resume debate on the motion for that particular group of individuals to bring their data to this forum, this committee, that once again—and I can't understand why—Mr. Julian had to have his own way in defeating the motion. We could have had 20 more minutes to talk about this bill, but he had to have his own way to move a unanimous consent motion to bring forward the exact same motion that he voted against in the original context when it was brought forward at the last meeting. To me, that actually points towards his—

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

Thank you, Chair.

Just because Mr. Julian doesn't like what I'm saying doesn't mean that it's not true or that he needs to attempt to impugn my character to say that I didn't read it or understand it. I read it and I do understand it, and the sad fact for you, Mr. Julian, is that there are folks who want to hold you to account because we do understand the underhanded nature with which you want to gut Bill C-368 and drive—

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

Certainly, as we begin to look at this, the sad part is hearing what you've just said, given the fact that Mr. Julian is quite prepared to gut a $13-billion industry, which he so wrongly says he supports. We know, as I said previously, that Bill C-368 will remove labelling changes, it will remove cost recovery and it will remove many other burdensome legislative policies with respect to the Food and Drugs Act as it respects natural health products.

As we begin to look at that, Mr. Julian himself referred back to how things happened in the House of Commons, as all of us are able to do. You can go back and you can look at who agreed to send this bill here to this committee. The yeas were 171 and the nays were 146. Clearly it was the will of the House at that time to accept the fact that Bill C-368 undid the negative changes of the omnibus bill put forward by the NDP-Liberal coalition.

I think the difficulty that exists today is that we hear the NDP saying they support this industry because they know they need those voters to agree with them when they introduce a wrecking motion, a wrecking amendment, to the actual spirit of Bill C-368. It's important that we attempt to put into context for Canadians what we have heard. Let's be honest: This amendment, NDP-1, will return the landscape of natural health products back to where we were before Bill C-368 existed.

When Bill C-368 didn't exist, what we heard very clearly from every representative of the natural health product industry who came forward was, “You are going to ruin our business; you are going to put us out of business; you are going to drive our business to the United States; you are going to drive Canadians to buying products online from sources that have absolutely no testing of their facilities, no ability to recall, no need to be careful with the ingredients that are on the list and no safety requirements.”

As we begin to understand that this is the case that existed after the deadly bill was proposed and, sadly, passed in the House of Commons by the NDP-Liberal coalition, now we know that marriage of the woke NDP-Liberal leaders is back in full force. We heard it today in the House of Commons with their tricky—

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

Certainly I have a difference of opinion with respect to Mr. Julian. I suspect we will need a ruling from you on this, Chair.

The thing I will agree with Mr. Julian on is that during the testimony, we heard about the powers of recall and the importance thereof, and I will also agree with him—I know you will find this shocking, but I will agree with him again—that we heard great acceptance of this within the industry.

What I would like to point out to you, though, Chair, with respect to admissibility is that, in essence, Bill C-368 changes the definition of a therapeutic product, meaning that a natural health product is not considered a therapeutic product by the overall scope of this bill. When you look at the Food and Drugs Act cited in Mr. Julian's amendment, you see that it goes on to talk about a therapeutic product.

In my mind, those two things are diametrically opposed. It becomes very difficult to exclude natural health products from being a therapeutic product but then cite regulations inside the Food and Drugs Act that call it a therapeutic product. That is, in my mind, as I said, a binary decision. You can't be and not be a therapeutic product at the same time.

That would be the difficulty that I would have, and I would go on to suggest that there perhaps are—again, directly contradicting Dr. Powlowski—more elegant ways proposed by Mr. Thériault to allow the minister to have those abilities of recall, etc., that we talked about.

In essence, the amendments would specifically come back to two things: the ability to recall products—which, again, we heard already exists—and strengthening that ability. I don't think there's going to be any argument against that.

The second part of it, of course, is the removal of nicotine-containing products from the definition of natural health products.

I think that when we begin to muddy the waters of the definition of a therapeutic product by allowing it to be a therapeutic product in one sense but not in another, it is going to create significant difficulties with the original omnibus bill that was presented by the NDP-Liberal government back in the spring, because the definition of a therapeutic product, a natural health product, becoming in essence a therapeutic product would then allow all of the other changes that come about thereafter, meaning the cost recovery program and the labelling changes as well.

As I said, in my mind, those two things are diametrically opposed. Given that the principle of the bill is to move natural health products out of the therapeutic product realm, the admissibility rules would state that the most common rules of admissibility are related to the principle of the bill and:

The principle of the bill is the object or purpose which the bill seeks to achieve. The principle of the bill is fixed when the bill is adopted at second reading. Any amendment contrary to the principle of the bill is inadmissible.

I think that if the real principle of the bill is unclear, we have a unique situation here. If it's unclear in writing, we could ask the drafter of the bill what the principle of the bill is, and I think it would be very clear that moving all natural health products away from the definition of a therapeutic product is really the principle of this bill and therefore makes NDP-1 inadmissible as an amendment.

I'll say it one more time. That doesn't mean that we don't support that type of movement, just that the NDP-1 amendment has to be deemed inadmissible by you.

Thank you, Chair.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The point I want to make is that just because I voted earlier against resuming debate on the motion to obtain additional documents does not necessarily mean that I voted against the principle of the motion. However, I don't think we need to have this debate, and I don't think we need this information to do our job today. Let me explain why.

First, I'd like to point out that we've tabled three amendments in relation to Bill C‑368. I may not have enough parliamentary experience, but in nine years, I've never worked as hard as I did on these three amendments. We had to study Bill C‑368, Bill C‑47, Vanessa's Law and the Food and Drugs Act. We also had to study another piece of legislation—the elephant in the room no one is talking about—the Natural Health Products Regulations, which are linked to Bill C‑368, our amendments and all the laws I've just mentioned. These regulations are a key element in their own right, and are already designed to protect consumers. I've looked into this. It's the centrepiece.

If we were to write a new regulation on natural health products or a new law on food and drugs, I would agree with the proposal that we wait 30 days in order to have time to receive the requested documents. However, this is not the case.

I will now share my preliminary remarks.

It is important to understand the concerns of the public, that is, those of the organizations whose representatives have come to testify before us, and the concerns of the minister in relation to Bill C‑368. I'll summarize the six main concerns.

First, we were told that nicotine products are extremely dangerous and that the provisions of Vanessa's Law should therefore be maintained, as well as the ministerial order issued in August. The latter concerned additional rules for nicotine replacement therapies. We will be proposing an amendment to this effect.

Secondly, we were told that the minister must retain his right to order a recall.

Third, we were told that the minister must have the ability to require changes to labels and packaging.

Fourth, we were told that poisoning from natural health products is dangerous. We agree that all intoxication is dangerous. We are aware of this.

Fifth, we've been told that we need the capacity to carry out inspections and post-marketing monitoring. We are aware of this, and there are already provisions for this in the Natural Health Products Regulations.

Sixth, with regard to new products, such as the new drugs mentioned by the minister, we were told that, if Bill C‑368 were passed, there would be a problem in relation to precursor chemicals.

I will now address these six concerns.

With regard to the first concern, we do indeed find it important to maintain in law the existing provisions concerning nicotine-based products. That's why we'll be proposing an amendment to keep the provisions affecting these products in Vanessa's Law and in the government's emergency order.

As for the second, we'll be proposing amendment BQ‑2 to retain the minister's right to order a recall when there are risks of serious harm to health, as well as his right to impose coercive measures in the event of serious risks to the environment.

As for the third, I would emphasize the following. Where there is a risk of harm to health, the minister can already impose a label change without going through the provisions of Vanessa's Law. He can simply apply the Natural Health Products Regulations. Indeed, under sections 16 and 17 of the Natural Health Products Regulations, found on page 13, Health Canada can require a company to modify its labelling, including the addition of new warnings. According to section 16, the minister may do so if he or she has “reasonable grounds to believe that a natural health product may no longer be safe when used under the recommended conditions of use.”

In fact, Health Canada recently used this same power to require companies to add a warning to products containing chasteberry. Companies had the option of adding the warning to the label, discontinuing the sale of the product, or presenting evidence that the warning was unnecessary. The minister already has this power under the regulations, and does not need to go through the provisions of Vanessa's Law.

The fourth concern is that poisoning from natural health products is dangerous. This is indeed the case. However, the provisions of Vanessa's Law do not necessarily come into play here.

It's about two things. The first is to ensure enforcement of the Natural Health Products Regulations. Health Canada must verify the recommended dosage indications and enforce other labelling requirements. This is its duty, Mr. Chair. This power was not acquired as a result of Vanessa's Law. Health Canada already has this power. In fact, that's what the Auditor General mentioned in one of her reports, which gave rise to Bill C‑47.

The second thing is that Health Canada really must do its duty. This organization absolutely must provide health information to help Canadians and Quebeckers make informed decisions. It must launch an awareness campaign on the dangers of natural health products and their interactions with other natural health products or medications. It must also stress the importance of adhering to the recommended dosage, as has been done with regard to the same risk of harm posed by medications. Health Canada has conducted successful medication awareness campaigns. That's Health Canada's role. It's their job to do it, but they're not doing it. Health Canada representatives admitted as much to the committee.

This authority, to conduct such awareness campaigns, does not derive from Vanessa's Law. It's Health Canada's job. The problem is that, for years, Health Canada has not adequately or sufficiently fulfilled its monitoring duties, even though the Natural Health Products Regulations legitimately entitle it to do so. Health Canada is not fulfilling its duties, and this is what the Auditor General denounced in her report.

I now turn to the fifth concern, which is that we must have the capacity to carry out inspections and post-market monitoring of products. Post-market monitoring is not included in Vanessa's Law. However, it is provided for in the Natural Health Products Regulations, notably in section 17(1), page 13. Section 16, page 13, deals with pre-marketing requirements. Subsection 17(1) deals with post-marketing requirements. It states in particular:

17(1) The minister may direct the licensee, manufacturer, importer and distributor to stop their sale of a natural health product if (a) the licensee does not, within the required period, provide the minister with the information and documents requested under section 16;

In other words, he has failed to provide the information requested by the minister.

(b) the information and documents provided by the licensee in accordance with section 16 do not demonstrate that the natural health product is safe when used under the recommended conditions of use;

(c) in the case of a natural health product that is imported, the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the natural health product is not manufactured, packaged, labelled, imported, distributed or stored in accordance with the requirements set out in part 3 or in accordance with requirements that are equivalent to those set out in part 3;

Part 3, which begins on page 24 of the regulations, defines good manufacturing and inspection practices.

I'm almost done, Mr. Chair.

(d) in the case of a natural health product that is not imported, the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the natural health product is not manufactured, packaged, labelled, distributed or stored in accordance with the requirements set out in part 3; or

(e) the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the natural health product is not packaged or labelled in accordance with the requirements set out in part 5.

Part 5 of the regulations, entitled “General”, begins on page 48 of the regulations, and includes requirements related to labelling and packaging.

What about the new hazardous products, such as drug precursors, mentioned by the minister?

I've already answered that in committee, but I want to say it again here, since we have the health of citizens at heart. Precursors are provided for in subsection 7.1(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This subsection provides as follows:

7.1(1) No person shall possess, produce, sell, import or transport anything intending that it will be used: (a) to produce a controlled substance [...]

Offences and penalties are already provided for in cases of violation of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Precursor Control Regulations, and these precursors are set out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

In addition, drug precursors, also known as “precursor chemicals” or simply “precursors”, are substances used to manufacture illicit drugs.

Most precursors also have legitimate commercial uses, and are used within the law in a variety of industrial processes related to consumer products, such as medicines, flavours and fragrances. We can therefore add drug precursors to the prohibited precursors.

Mr. Chair, I hope I have made the case that we cannot make amendments to Bill C‑368.

What exactly does this bill do? It simply says that natural health products cannot be left in the legislative environment of Vanessa's Law. We have to get them out of there.

We need to make the necessary amendments to the Natural Health Products Regulations. This fully addresses consumers' concerns, insofar as recalls will no longer be strictly voluntary, but mandatory. The minister will absolutely have the power to do this, and it won't be done at the will of the company.

The amendments we will soon be studying will ensure that we are well equipped to continue our study of the bill. We have the necessary documents at our disposal to do the work we have to do this afternoon. I'll also be able to explain the rationale behind these amendments.

Thank you.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I think this is worthwhile pointing out. I know it's painful to Mr. Julian, but the sad part is that Mr. Julian was the.... We knew that the Liberals were going to vote against this because, of course, they moved the original bill to gut the natural health product industry.

I think it's shameful for Mr. Julian to have been the one to adjourn debate on bringing forward data that is specifically related to this bill and to the natural health product industry, of which he claims he's a huge supporter.

That's not to mention the fact that one of the amendments he has brought forward is basically a wrecking amendment toward Bill C-368. As we begin to consider his amendment, I think we'll find that we'll ask you, Chair, to rule against the admissibility of his ridiculous amendment as we go forward.

With that, I think it's incredibly important that we resume debate with respect to the data that we requested at the last meeting related to the natural health product industry because it provides important context for Canadians to understand that, by and large, this industry is safe, effective and proudly Canadian.

If the NDP-Liberals are allowed to have their way, they will wreck the industry, drive businesses out of Canada and force Canadians to purchase products online, which will never be tested up to Canadian standards because there's no law requiring that. They'll be able to access products from any jurisdiction they wish.

We have an opportunity specifically to ensure an industry.... We've heard multiple testimonies related to the safety and the interest of those involved in the industry of how safe it is. They're willing and open to have changes. We've talked to them, and they're willing and open to have changes with respect to removing products that contain nicotine from the category of natural health products. We also know that the concept of recall.... I know that our colleague from the Bloc has submitted an amendment specifically with respect to recall that we certainly would support, which makes perfect sense.

We heard clearly from inside the industry that moving amendments related to those two things would make perfect sense.

Very specifically, Chair, with those things in mind, I move that we resume debate on the motion I proposed at the last committee meeting, which was adjourned by the NDP and the Liberals, to demand that ISMP bring forward data that they cited at that last meeting with respect to natural health products.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 140 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to an order of reference adopted by the House of Commons on Wednesday, May 29, 2024, the committee is commencing its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-368, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding natural health products.

I would like to welcome our witnesses, who are available to us as experts for any questions members might have that are related to the legislation.

From the Department of Health, we have David K. Lee, chief regulatory officer, health products and food branch, and Kim Godard, director general, health product compliance directorate. From the office of the legislative counsel, we have Alexie Labelle and Jean-François Pagé for any procedural questions.

I'd like to provide members with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-368.

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. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments 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 bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and the subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Doucas, would your organization be open to an amendment to Bill C-368 removing nicotine-containing products?

[Carolyn Hoffman]

Today we speak about the concerns that we have with Bill C-368—a number of concerns—and so we are silent on any proposed amendments today.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Hoffman, I'll ask you the same question. Would your organization be open to removing nicotine products from Bill C-368?

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

When we begin to look at the difficulties with this bill.... I guess I'll ask some very pointed questions.

Ms. Callard, would your organization be open to an amendment removing nicotine-containing products from Bill C-368?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes. Thank you.

We heard recently from a small business owner who testified on Bill C-368. He said that if the legislation doesn't pass, Health Canada's new regulations on natural health products will cost his natural supplement business $500,000.

What are your thoughts on the cost? You used the expression “mom-and-pop”, and that certainly characterizes many of these businesses in my own riding. These are small businesses serving our communities. When I hear of a compliance cost at that level, it is a cause for concern, especially hearing you speak about the ability to move elsewhere and to conduct your business differently.

Can you speak a bit to the cost aspect?

[Carolyn Hoffman]

We can speak to our position today on Bill C-368 and be clear that, to our understanding—it's what we can speak to—if the bill does go through, the important, very focused provisions under Vanessa's Law will be reversed. One of them is to compel. Wording is very important with all these legislative mechanisms, and in this case, we understand and believe, and it's our position, that this would be lost—a “compel” provision around labelling. Although there is a regulatory framework, these regulatory provisions under Vanessa's Law are at risk.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Okay.

I personally appreciate hearing your points of view, ladies. They are important. Earlier, we talked about the fact that we need to have a serious discussion about a $13‑billion industry. The global tobacco industry was worth $694 billion in 2021, but that did not stop us from introducing regulations and controls for the industry. It took a lot of energy and a lot of litigation to get there.

When it comes to natural health products in the broadest sense of the term, it became clear that the industry itself did not want to side with the bad actors. It wanted to protect its reputation.

With that in mind, we could make two other amendments, which would give the minister the authority to recall and ensure that the fines were appropriate, as permitted by the natural health products regulations. The legislative context is completely different from that of pharmaceutical products. As it happens, natural health product companies are not multinationals with 20-year patents whose products are not taxed. We're not talking about the same industry. However, we have to make sure that these products are safe for the public.

In short, the minister would have the authority to recall; there would be appropriate fines based on the legislative framework that we are trying to define; and the industry would be more strictly regulated, not harmed.

In fact, the reason we are here—and no one has said this—is that Health Canada didn't do its work until 2018.

The industry is already regulated. There are already voluntary recalls. The minister will be given the authority to recall, but that authority does not relieve Health Canada of its obligation to carry out the necessary inspections and checks, which the industry was not subject to for a long time. There should be no confusing those things or thinking that bringing in a law necessarily means we're protecting the public.

Health Canada has a duty to educate. It will be the duty of Health Canada to talk about the interactions between natural health products and pharmaceutical products, as well as between pharmaceutical products themselves.

Ladies, your comments are relevant. We heard you, and we are going to propose amendments to Bill C‑368 to lessen the adverse consequences and respect everyone's interests including those of consumers. They must have easy access to products and be assured of their safety when they buy them.