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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting 135 of the House of the Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 29, 2024, the committee will resume its study of Bill C-368, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act—

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

That's a good question. Thank you, Mr. Julian, for your question. You're exactly right.

Here's how it played out: Bill C-51 was brought forward. I don't think the industry responded well to Bill C-51 back when that happened. The right thing to do when Parliament or a government in the House of Commons makes a mistake is to step back, ask “What have we done?”, and then consult with the industry, consult with stakeholders, and consult with people who are going to be affected by this.

Mr. Julian, if the claim that 80% of Canadians.... You asked me during the debate on Bill C-368 whether I take these products. You and I are part of the 80% of Canadians who take them. As a matter of fact, you and I both take magnesium, which is very understandable, considering the lifestyles and the work demands that we have.

That's how you do it. You do it by engaging. What's missing in this particular case is that the government did make a misstep with Bill C-47. The misstep is that it didn't consult with the industry and that it was tucked into a budget implementation act. It passed basically with no discussion. I don't recall anybody in the debate on Bill C-47 even raising the issue, because it was just four little lines in this great big omnibus piece of legislation, until people figured out what was actually going on with the implementation of the self-care framework. Then the industry came forward and asked the government, similar to what it did with Bill C-51 and Bill C-17, to take a step back and to consult the industry before moving forward. That's how you do things in a constructive way.

What I've seen happen here is that the government has not only dug in on Bill C-47 but has also doubled down on it in Bill C-69, the next budget implementation act, giving the power to Health Canada and to the minister to make immense changes to the industry.

To my knowledge, to this day the industry has not been consulted by the minister, who's been responsible for making those last two changes.

How can you build goodwill and get to a place where everybody is happy, where Canadian consumers are happy, where the industry is happy and where the government can provide adequate oversight? Nobody's arguing that there should be no oversight. We're simply saying, the industry is saying and Canadians are saying that there was not a really big problem with the way things were, and if there are a few small flies, we don't need to swat them with a sledgehammer. That seems to be what's happening.

My recommendations would be to pass Bill C-368 and take it back, and then, if the government does have some legitimate problems, start all over again. Start working with the industry on a broader level. Do consultations before making this kind of a misstep again, because we've riled up thousands—millions—of Canadians with this, as has been evidenced by the cards we've received, and rightly so, Mr. Julian.

Our job, as members of Parliament, is to work on behalf of Canadians, not to work on behalf of the government.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Understood.

I'll undoubtedly introduce that amendment, because it's one of the main points of contention about Bill C‑368.

There's a lobby opposing the bill. People are coming to meet with us to tell us that the bill makes no sense. They'll tell us that we're going to allow the unrestricted sale of products like Zonnic because, among other things, there's no mechanism for recalling products.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

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

My point is that it accidentally ended up here. I don't know why nicotine would be here when it could be more properly regulated under the same legislation that looks after tobacco and so on.

My recommendation would be to pass this bill in its current form and find a solution elsewhere to deal with nicotine, or something to that effect.

The reality is, Mr. Thériault, that the bill was only in my care and control up until I tabled it in the House of Commons. It is now the property of the House of Commons and this committee. I would recommend that we find a different way to do it.

I'm not suggesting that your concerns are invalid, but I would suggest that there are other places and other powers that the minister has. Bogging down the progress of Bill C-368 and stopping a $5.5-billion industry simply for nicotine pouches I think might be the wrong approach. I think there's a better way or another way to do it.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-368, which was passed at second reading on May 29.

Bill C-368 is, by design, a bill that is meant to undo the changes made to the definition of natural health products in Bill C-47, a budget implementation act passed by the Liberals and the NDP. The omnibus bill brings natural health products under the legislative and regulatory rubrics of Vanessa's Law, a bill that was intended to only affect therapeutic chemical drugs.

The Liberal government, supported by the NDP, snuck these changes in without consulting the industry, shrouding their actions under the cover of a budget bill, hoping no one would notice. However, Canadians did notice.

Over 80% of Canadians rely on products such as protein powders, vitamins, probiotics, electrolytes, etc., every day in their daily lives. They would like to have their say on this bill. Bill C-368 is finally their opportunity for them to have that say.

The changes introduced in Bill C-47 are unacceptable and will lead to irreparable harm to the natural health product industry and the 32 million consumers in Canada. Eighty per cent of Canadians use natural health products. Businesses will close, innovation will be stifled, investment will dry up and Canadian products will disappear from shelves. Made-in-Canada choice will be replaced with unregulated foreign mail orders.

We are talking about a $5.5-billion industry that generates over $200 million in GST. It employs 54,000 people directly, from manufacturing to retail, and this does not even include the members working indirectly in the industry's packaging and shipping and so on.

I believe that Canadians have the right to make the health choices that are best for them and their families. I also believe that businesses should not shoulder the heavy cost of an ever-growing bureaucratic empire. We know that existing regulations on health supplements already keep Canadians safe. This additional red tape is about giving more power to Ottawa, not protecting Canadians.

That's why I've introduced my bill, Bill C-368, which amends the Food and Drugs Act and takes us back to the laws and regulations prior to Bill C-47. It aims to safeguard the rights of Canadian consumers and ensure the availability of safe and beneficial natural health products that Canadians rely on.

By supporting this legislation, you will be pushing back against governmental overreach and protecting the rights of entrepreneurs and consumers in the health product market. Together we can ensure that Canadian businesses are competitive and that Canadians' access to safe supplements is protected.

Before we go to the round of questions, I would like to refute some claims that some of the detractors of my bill have stated.

The first is that the industry is not a safe one. If anything, our existing regulatory system is one of the best in the world. I would like to quote the IADSA, the global association for the food supplement sector. In a letter they submitted to this committee, they stated:

Up to now, Canada has been a world leader in the regulation of dietary supplements. We fear that the proposed changes to Canada’s regulatory framework for natural health products risk creating an environment that could stifle the industry and limit Canadians' access to high-quality supplements.

IADSA has always promoted the Canadian model as a global reference point for governments across the world who are creating or redeveloping their regulatory systems. This Canadian model is recognized as providing consumers access to products which are safe and beneficial while fostering innovation and supporting investment in the sector.

They're not talking about the Bill C-47 changes; they're talking about before Bill C-47.

Next, Health Canada has paraded out an Auditor General's report that claims that hundreds have become sick from natural health products, notwithstanding the fact that therapeutic drugs harm a magnitude more people than natural health products. This statistic is simply not true. Deloitte conducted an audit of the industry, and it shows that in fact very few people have had adverse effects from natural health products.

There's a general theme to be observed here. Health Canada makes claims they cannot support and provides no documentation to support their claims, which are quickly debunked in the absence of any real data.

Another line of attack on my bill was that the changes to the Food and Drugs Act were necessary to stop the sale of nicotine pouches. This is simply not true. Nicotine pouches should never have been categorized as a natural health product, nor did Health Canada need to give them a natural health product number. The Minister of Health already has the powers needed to fix these issues, including issuing a stop order. Why the need for these ever greater powers?

The last claim is that the self-funding model is needed to pay for the expanded bureaucracy. The directorate at Health Canada is now $50 million. This industry generates over $200 million in GST alone. One could assume then that the self-funding model is nothing more than a tax grab.

If I am to leave you with one salient point, it's that the minister has given himself unchecked power with Bill C-47 and Bill C-69 to deem many products non-compliant, even if the scientific evidence does not support that claim. When we couple this with the fact that under Vanessa's Law non-compliance can result in $5-million daily fines, natural health product small and medium-sized enterprises are understandably feeling the chill of a government with unchecked power.

This once stable, safe and renowned industry is being destroyed. As MPs, it is our duty to fix the mess that Bill C-47 has created.

I urge all of you to go through the study, pass my bill unamended and send it back to the House of Commons as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call the meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 29, 2024, the committee will start its study of Bill C-368 an act to amend the food and drugs act with regard to natural health products.

I'd like to welcome the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Blaine Calkins, member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe.

I don't think we have time for other formalities, Mr. Calkins, except to give you the floor for the next five minutes to introduce your bill.

Welcome to the committee, and congratulations on getting your bill to this stage.

You have the floor, sir.

[Tu-Quynh Trinh, Committee Researcher]

[Inaudible—Editor] for opioids, and the NDP for Bill C-368.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I see consensus. The budgets are adopted. Thank you.

There are two things. The analysts would like to be able to give you a work plan for the study of Bill C-368 and an updated work plan for the opioids study, but it's difficult for them to do that when we don't have sufficient witnesses to round out the panels, so this is a reminder. If you have submitted witnesses, please take another look at your list to see if there are more names you want to offer. If you haven't, please get them in so that we can get those work plans done.

Mrs. Goodridge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That brings us to the budget for Bill C-368.

Is there any discussion? Do we have consensus to adopt the budget as presented?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Breese Biagioni.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

I think that's a good note to end on.

We very much appreciate your bringing your lived experience and expertise. We admire you for your advocacy on this topic. As you can tell by the unanimous passage of the bill to bring it to committee, you have the attention of the Parliament of Canada. As you can tell by the constructive dialogue we've had, we all seem to be aligned in what we want. This is a good day. This is a good session. It's very much appreciated.

I'm going to indicate to our panellists online that they're welcome to stay, but they're free to go.

We have some housekeeping, colleagues, so please don't run away.

Ms. Breese Biagioni and Mr. Fleiszer, I would also encourage you not to go away, because I think we're going to get through this housekeeping fairly quickly, and I suspect there are some people around the table who want to shake your hand before you go.

Thank you to all.

In terms of housekeeping, colleagues, yesterday you would have received two study budgets, one for this study and the other for the examination of Bill C-368, a private member's bill. Unless there's a willingness to deal with these jointly, we'll deal with them separately.

With respect to Bill C-277, is it the will of the committee to adopt the budget as presented? Is there any discussion?

I see no discussion. Do we have consensus to adopt the budget as presented?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Further to that, Mr. Buckley, you may be well aware that Conservatives have put forward Bill C-368, which passed through its second reading this past May. This bill seeks to repeal sections 500 to 504 of the budget implementation act, 2023.

In your opinion, why is it so important that we see this legislation passed as quickly as possible? Can you share why it would be a priority to see Bill C-368 passed as soon as possible?

Thank you very much.

[Shawn Buckley]

First of all, you need to understand the history. This law that came to be known as Vanessa's law in 2014 was first introduced by former health minister Tony Clement in March 2008. It was called Bill C-51. The bureaucracy still remembers Bill C-51.

Basically, it brought in these $5-million-a-day fines and all of these almost God-like powers that Health Canada has. The original bill just applied to all drugs. We didn't have the therapeutic product category. That came in with Vanessa's law.

I remember a meeting I had at the Prime Minister's Office. We were being escorted out by Laurie Throness, who was number two at the ministry of health at the time. He explained to us that there was so much mail going into the minister's office that it was coming in wheelbarrows. Canadians were concerned.

Health Canada knew that Canadians did not want these powers and penalties applied to natural health products, so it waited until 2014, when Vanessa's law created the category of therapeutic products, which excluded natural health products, so the consumer was fine. The consumer was not concerned with fines, which actually are very small when you consider the money the pharmaceutical companies make, but which would absolutely destroy any natural health product producer or practitioner for that matter. The consumer was also not concerned about Health Canada's having increased powers, but about a rule of law perspective that would be inappropriate for any branch of the public, so everyone sat still.

I can tell you that everyone was absolutely surprised. Why would you put major changes to our drug regulation that you know the consumer is extremely concerned about into a budget bill? It's an affront to the parliamentary process. We were caught completely off guard. There would have been an absolute citizen rebellion. I mean, how often does a private member's bill get into committee? Bill C-368 did because Parliament understands that the Canadian citizen is concerned about it.

I gave you the figures just from our organization, but other organizations like the CHFA are also running campaigns and supporting Bill C-368.

Half a million letters through our organization alone speak broadly to Canadians' interest in this.

[Shawn Buckley, Constitutional Lawyer and President, Natural Health Products Protection Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's timely that this committee is considering the regulation of natural health products. This is the regulatory issue that is of most importance to Canadians.

By way of example, the organization I'm with, the Natural Health Products Protection Association, created over half a million citizen letters to targeted MPs for a single campaign just to support Bill C-368 concerning the regulation of NHPs.

Citizens are extremely engaged in this because they're concerned that Health Canada is going to increase the regulatory burden through the self-care framework. However, this committee needs to understand that the current regulations are far too dramatic and render us very uncompetitive in comparison with the United States.

I want to draw three major differences between how the U.S. and Canada regulate natural health products. I hope this committee understands that we arrived at these completely polar opposite regulatory approaches from consumer pressure.

In the late eighties and into the nineties, both the FDA and Health Canada were over-regulating natural health products by imposing the chemical drug regulations. The consumer rebelled with two messages: do not regulate NHPs like drugs, and we want increased access, meaning we want a reduced regulatory burden not an increase.

The citizen rebellion in the United States led to the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which does three things completely opposite to how Health Canada manoeuvred us to regulate.

The first difference is that NHPs in the United States are classed as foods, but we've been manoeuvred into classifying them as drugs.

The second major difference—and listen carefully—is that NHPs in the United States are deemed by law to be safe, but we've been manoeuvred into the drug model where our NHPs are deemed by law to be dangerous.

The third major difference is that, in the United States, you don't need government pre-approval to sell a natural health product, but in Canada, because we've been pushed into the drug model, we have to jump through all of these regulatory hoops to get Health Canada permission in the form of a license.

This has driven the cost of Canadian NHPs through the roof compared to our American competitors, and that has removed them from low-income Canadians, who now don't have the option of using NHPs. This has health consequences.

The curious thing in the sole message by Health Canada is that we need these regulations for safety, and we can safely conclude that it is not true for several reasons. First of all, we weren't having a safety issue before the regulations. The United States isn't having a safety issue with how they're regulating. The big fraud is that every Canadian is free to import the unregulated natural health products from the United States and to use them personally, and a large number of Canadians are doing that because of the price difference.

Risk is always measured. There's a risk hierarchy. How many deaths per million of the population are there per year? Health Canada refuses to tell us what that number is because there likely isn't a credible death attributed to the entire NHP industry per decade, let alone per million per year.

Finally, if you want to have an honest risk analysis, if we're really here to regulate because of safety, then everyone on the committee knows that well over 70% of Canadians are regularly using natural health products, and a large number of those are effectively managing health conditions—some of them serious—with these products. Obviously, there's going to be a health consequence to taking products away that people are effectively using to manage their health, but we never have that type of discussion. We're just told that there's risk and that we need to increase our regulations. These are the most unpopular regulations in Canadian history, and they're likely the most damaging; there are health consequences.

I'll just close, as I think I'm getting close to my five minutes, by pointing out that I'm not suggesting, in any way, that we stop products at the border. That would not survive a section 7 Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge. That's not the answer. The answer is getting rid of this regulatory burden that has nothing to do with safety, and moving more towards a model like the U.S. has.

Report Stage

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-69.

Here we are again. Another year, another NDP-Liberal budget, and every budget it seems is worse than the one before. This year's iteration of the budget is falsely titled “Fairness for Every Generation”. The title is ironic because, after nine years of the government, virtually every generation in the country is worse off. In fact, I cannot think of a single demographic, other than the Liberal insiders, that is better off in nine years.

Our youth can only dream of affording a home after the government has allowed a housing shortfall. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we would need to build 1.3 million homes to close the housing gap. Both renters and homeowners are struggling to pay their bills after the cost of housing has been allowed to double under the leadership of the Prime Minister.

Our seniors are seeing their pensions ravaged by inflation. Not that long ago, it used to be that their old age security, CPP and whatever other savings they might have could see them through on a monthly basis. That is no longer the case. The government has directly driven up that inflation, making life unaffordable by continuing to overspend. By piling on another $61 billion of new spending this year, piling on to our already enormous debt, it has proven that it does not plan on changing course any time soon.

Parents are struggling with affordability, and it is now difficult for many families to feed their children. We are seeing yearly inflation rates for many food products in the double digits, while a record two million Canadians had to use a food bank in a single month last year, which is incredible.

Let us not forget the pesky carbon tax that compounds through the economy, costing over $30 billion of economic activity, as recently highlighted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Therefore, not only is it costing us every time we make a purchase, but it is costing our economy $30 billion in output. After nine years of the government creating intergenerational poverty, that would be a more apt name for this budget.

We know things are bad for the government when former Liberal Bank of Canada governor David Dodge has called it the worst budget since 1982, when the current Prime Minister's father was the prime minister. Like father, like son, as they say.

Instead of cutting back spending, the government has continued to be irresponsible and is spending money that Canadians no longer have. This has forced the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates. The cost to service the debt is now $54.1 billion. One must wonder what $54.1 billion could have been spent on instead of servicing the debt.

Like many Liberal bills, the budget has been turned into an omnibus bill to push forward strange and unusual requests that have little to do with budgets or measures, that are so controversial that if tabled on their own would not likely get the support of this chamber.

This year's boondoggle is the new tax on capital gains, a direct attack on business owners. It is only after the Conservatives pushed back that the government relented and put the capital gains changes into a separate bill. I chalk this up to pure incompetence, as the government continues to wedge, stigmatize and divide Canadians, and has open class warfare in our tax system.

The government claims that this change will bring fairness into the tax system essentially to target the richest 0.13%. Nothing could be further from the truth. What it conveniently ignores is how this tax will likely impact, and only impact, middle-class Canadians. This includes tradesmen, farmers who are worried about the succession of their family farms and small business owners who worry that it may not be worth growing their businesses in Canada anymore after these changes. The immigration stats are proving this to be true.

This would not be the typical 1%, but in fact would not be any of the 1% at all. Rather, they are our neighbours, friends and family members, the people who put food on our table and build our homes, and those industrious small business owners who employ people in our local communities and, meanwhile, sponsor the T-shirts for our kids' soccer teams.

I would also like to focus the attention of members on another underhanded change in the budget implementation act, and that is the newest changes to the Food and Drugs Act. The NDP vacated its role as an opposition party in March 2022, and instead of holding the government to account, its members have decided to help ease the passage of budget Bill C-47, which was the budget implementation act of 2023.

The ghastly bill was a direct attack on Canada's natural health product industry, one of the safest and best regulated industries on Planet Earth. These changes came as part of a push to radically change Health Canada's regulatory framework. Health Canada claimed that the changes were necessary to safeguard public health, but we simply know, with all the powers that it has, that this simply is not true.

The major alteration to the act was to change the definition of a therapeutic product to include natural health products. A therapeutic product is essentially a synthetic drug and it has little in common with food, which is the closest commonality that natural health products actually have. This would essentially put natural health products in the same regulatory framework as pharmaceutical drugs. It would also force the industry to pay for Health Canada's costly bureaucratic overhead with expensive new licensing fees and fines.

Essentially, by putting a self-funding model in place, what the government would be doing is just taxing the industry with that self-funding regulatory model so that it could free up the $50 million a year, which it already uses to manage the natural health product space, and use that money on some other misguided priority of the government.

Previously, natural health products were exempt from much of the regulations in the Food and Drugs Act, as a common understanding is that natural health products are a much lower risk to one's health than a pharmaceutical drug. That is why I introduced my private member's Bill C-368 to repeal these changes to the Food and Drugs Act and return to the status quo, maintaining the distinction between natural health products and therapeutic products.

However, if my private member's bill fails to pass, this new budget may also have a big impact on the natural health products industry. That is because division 31 of part 4 of this new budget implementation bill has introduced new ministerial powers pertaining to therapeutic products. Once again, it would be another change to the Food and Drugs Act and Health Canada. Instead of putting it in its own bill, it is tucked into part of an omnibus budget implementation act.

The most concerning of these changes is to allow the minister to make unilateral changes on therapeutic products without any basis in science demonstrating risk. Proposed subsection 30.01(1) of the bill states:

Subject to any regulations made under paragraph 30(1)‍(j.‍1) and if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the use of a therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present a risk of injury to health, the Minister may, by order, establish rules in respect of the importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing of the therapeutic product for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health.

That might seem innocuous, however, proposed subsection 30.01(3) states, “The Minister may make the order despite any uncertainty respecting the risk of injury to health that the use of the therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present.” It states “despite any uncertainty”, so there would be no scientific rationale needed anymore, if the bill passes, for the minister to pull any product he or she wants off of the shelf. That is uncontrolled power. The powers that would be given to the ministers are concerning, but what is even more concerning is the combined effect of both budgets on our homegrown natural health product industry. The effect would be catastrophic. Not only is the industry reeling from the changes in the last budget implementation bill, but this one has introduced the element of arbitrary power in the hands of the minister.

There is little worse in business than uncertainty, and natural health products are only a small part of what is wrong with this bill and with industries across Canada. Small businesses are closing across our country, and yet, instead of supporting our entrepreneurs, the government uses every budget it has to target them.

We need a budget that empowers small business owners instead of penalizing them. In essence, I say not to buy into the budget title. If the last eight budgets from the Prime Minister are any indication, fairness for every generation is simply a pipe dream. As Winston Churchill once noted, “The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” If by promoting fairness, the government means promoting intergenerational poverty, then in its own way, I guess it is fair, but absolutely nobody is better off.

Only the Conservatives can restore Canada's fiscal house to order. Instead of saddling Canadian families, tradesmen, small enterprise operators and entrepreneurs with ever-growing regulation and taxation, we would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Canada has a vast and untapped economic potential and it is time for a Conservative government to unleash that potential.

Natural Health Products

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by the people of Pickering—Uxbridge, of Whitby and of the Liberal Minister of Health's riding of Ajax. They call on the House of Commons to immediately pass Bill C-368 and repeal the new regulatory constraints on natural health products passed last year that millions of Canadians rely upon that has since affected medical freedom of choice and affordability.

“Boo hoo, get over it” just does not cut it.