Bill C-368 (Historical)

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.

Food and Drugs Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who spoke in the House tonight, in the second hour of debate on Bill C-224. As has been mentioned, this is the second Parliament I have tabled this bill in. In the previous Parliament, it was Bill C-368. It passed at second reading in this place, but it was not unanimous. It went through the committee process in the last Parliament, but it died on the Order Paper with the prorogation and subsequent election.

Now we have a new Parliament, and I was very fortunate to get drawn in the first tranche of private members' business. I was more than happy, on behalf of the 80% of Canadians, some 30 million, who use natural health products on a routine basis to improve the quality of their lives at a time when it is hard enough in this country to make ends meet, to get by, to find a doctor and to look after oneself. It seemed pretty straightforward and easy for me to get behind this cause.

Not only am I a user of these natural health products myself, but I know that so many friends and family members also do the same thing. All my constituents in Ponoka—Didsbury, which in the previous Parliament was Red Deer—Lacombe, have been very supportive of what I have done. I have travelled across the country to meet with health store owners, various stakeholders and Canadians on a regular basis about this. It is a very important issue, and I am glad that we are having this conversation today.

As members may recall, in the previous Parliament, the definition of “natural health products” was changed in Bill C-47, which was a budget implementation bill. Nobody knew this was coming. It was underhanded and sneaky. That was the approach of the previous government in the previous Parliament. There was no consultation with the Natural Health Product Protection Association or the Canadian Health Food Association. Nobody even knew it was there. As a matter of fact, there was basically radio silence for about six months, until somebody figured out that those four little clauses in that bill had been passed and subsequent changes to the self-care framework were being implemented by Health Canada. That is when the lid kind of blew off the whole process and people started getting involved.

To take us back to where we were, this is not some wild west, non-regulated area of responsibility. Natural health products have been very highly regulated in Canada for a long time. As a matter of fact, IADSA, the International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations, not therapeutic drugs but dietary food supplements, basically had Canada's regulatory regime ranked as the gold standard around the world. We were exporting these products because importers and agencies from around the world trusted that made-in-Canada label and the natural product number. This was a solution in search of a problem, and it blew up in the government's face.

There is no reason at all that natural health products should get caught up in the clutches of Vanessa's Law, a very important piece of legislation and work. We need to treat natural health products for what they are. They are a stand-alone category, and my bill seeks to take us back to where we were prior to Bill C-47. I made one small adjustment to the bill in this Parliament to exempt nicotine, because I believe many people would think it reasonable that nicotine should be managed completely differently and separately from natural health and therapeutic products. I am looking forward to my colleagues having that debate, should this bill get to committee.

I want to thank my colleague in the Bloc Québécois. I think he was a little upset that I did not include the amendment to deal with recall. I know that is going to come up again in the debate, should this bill get to second reading.

Before I conclude, I want to extend some thanks, if I can be permitted, even if I go a bit longer. I want to thank the Natural Health Product Protection Association, specifically Shawn and Teresa Buckley, for their continued advocacy for freedom of choice for Canadians on this issue and so many more. I thank them so much for the work they do. To the Canadian Health Food Association, particularly Jules, Sonia and Wenjing, I thank them so much for the work they do in advocating on behalf of retailers and the entire industry, the producers, retailers, everybody.

Most importantly, I want to thank Canadians who are watching right now. As I said, 80% of Canadians use natural health products, and they support their own right to choose their health outcomes. They were the ones who signed the cards we all got, signed the petitions, wrote the emails and made the calls to MPs' offices. They have changed the tide of the debate in this country, and the House should be responding to them.

I am very much looking forward to the continuation of this bill as it goes through the legislative process. I want to thank everybody who has been supportive.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak about Bill C-224. This is an important bill that impacts millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products as part of their daily health and wellness routines, and who want to know that the products they are using and consuming are safe.

I think all of us recognize that this bill has some ideas worth exploring. Our government is always open to ideas that help Canadian businesses thrive and ensure that Canadians have access to safe, effective natural health products. In fact, one of our new government's top priorities was to remove burdensome red tape in regulation. We have seen this promise in action in the natural health product sector. Our government heard from natural health product companies that they were finding that some new regulations were too onerous or did not do what they set out to do. In response, we paused some of these regulations and limited the scope of others.

Canada's natural health product industry is a huge part of the economy. We want to make sure that these companies can thrive, but we also want to make sure that Canadians can trust that the natural health products they rely on are safe, and that what they say on the label is what is actually in them. After all, the term “natural health products” encompasses a wide range of products, and one only needs to look at the Health Canada recall page to see that. Sometimes mistakes are made. There can be mislabeled products or undeclared ingredients. In one extreme case last year, a range of multivitamins and supplements had to be recalled across Canada because they contained metal fibres. These recalls are rare, but they show how even seemingly safe products that are authorized and widely used can still have some risks.

That is what makes some regulatory oversight so important. Having food and drug safety regulations that ensure that the products on store shelves are safe, effective and of high quality helps Canadian consumers and Canadian companies alike. These regulations build trust and confidence in the system. Consumers trust that the products on store shelves are what they say they are, while businesses get to operate on a level playing field. It also makes Canada a more attractive destination for companies looking to expand, because they know that we have a regulatory system in place that maintains some of the highest food and drug safety standards in the world.

An unintended consequence of Bill C-224 is that, rather than simply reducing the regulatory burden on natural health product companies, it could make people less certain about the products they are using.

Under the current laws and regulations, the Minister of Health has a number of important powers. They can order a product recall. They can require changes to labels or packaging. They can request additional information about a product when they suspect the product poses a serious risk to human health. They can issue fines against companies that refuse to take unsafe products off the shelf. These are all important tools to protect consumers, and the way it is currently written, the bill would remove these tools altogether.

I know that the bill's sponsor, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, is a long-time advocate for natural health products. During the previous Parliament, he introduced the forerunner of this bill, Bill C-368, which had many of the same provisions.

I will pause here to note that one important difference between Bill C-368 and Bill C-224 is that the current bill does not exempt nicotine products from the Food and Drugs Act, which is a significant improvement. Both bills are a considerable attempt to help natural health product companies continue to grow and thrive. This is a goal all of us share.

It is certainly a goal of our new government. It is why we have been working closely with our natural health product industry stakeholders as part of our red tape review to streamline and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Thanks to the red tape review, Health Canada is shifting to a risk-based approach to oversight that will reduce pre-market requirements for natural health products, while shifting direct oversight and resources to higher-risk areas. It also put a pause on new labelling requirements and is continuing to work with natural health product companies to address their concerns.

We also recognize that a key part of working with the natural health product industry is flexibility. We cannot just apply a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach. One of the important pieces of legislation passed by the previous government was Bill C-69, which gave the Minister of Health the flexibility to respond to urgent and emerging regulatory challenges as they arise with tailored options and solutions. In a world where both industry and government are constantly facing evolving challenges, this kind of flexibility is essential.

This important work needs to continue, and I think there is room within the current bill to allow it to continue, which is why I look forward to voting for this bill and studying it at the health committee.

However, we also need to make sure there are rules and regulations in place to protect Canadian consumers. When Canadians reach for a product on a store's shelves, they need to have confidence in its safety and trust that the label accurately represents the product. If they do not have that confidence, if they cannot trust the product they are buying, it will hurt the entire natural health products industry and, by extension, our economy.

There is an important balance we need to find, and I hope we can study this bill at committee to make sure it strikes the right balance, one that ensures Canadians can have peace of mind when it comes to the products they buy and that Canadian natural health product companies have the tools they need to grow and thrive.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-224 this morning.

This is an important bill that would impact millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products as part of their daily health and wellness routines and want to know that the products they are using and consuming are safe. Unfortunately, the bill as it is currently written would make it harder for Canadians to trust the safety and quality of their natural health products, and it would make it harder to make sure that harmful products could be taken off the shelf. However, even with those flaws, I think we can all agree that this bill has some ideas worth exploring.

One of our new government's top priorities was to remove burdensome red tape and regulations. We have seen this promise in action in the natural health products sector. Our government heard from natural health product companies that some of the regulatory burdens added by the previous government were too onerous or did not do what they set out to do, so we paused some of those regulations and limited the scope of others.

Canada's natural health products industry is a huge part of our economy, and we want to make sure that these companies can thrive. We also want to make sure that Canadians can trust that the natural health products they rely on are safe and that what is on the label is actually what is in them. After all, the term “natural health products” encompasses all sorts of things. It includes vitamins, minerals and supplements, but it can also include products like sunscreen, deodorant and toothpaste. It even includes products that contain addictive substances, like nicotine in the form of nicotine replacement therapies. In other words, there is a wide range of products.

We need only look at the Health Canada recall page to see that sometimes, mistakes are made. There can be mislabelled products or undeclared ingredients. In one extreme case last year, a range of multivitamins and supplements had to be recalled across Canada because they contained metal fibres. These recalls are rare, but they show that even seemingly safe products that are authorized and widely used can still have some risks.

Having this oversight in place, with food and drug safety regulations that ensure that the products on store shelves are safe, effective and of high quality, helps Canadian consumers and Canadian companies alike. These regulations build trust and confidence in the system. Consumers trust that the products on store shelves are what they say they are, while businesses get to operate on a level playing field. This oversight also makes Canada a more attractive destination for companies looking to expand, because they know we have a regulatory system in place that maintains some of the highest food and drug safety standards in the world.

It is important to note that in its current form, Bill C-224 would undo many of these regulations. In trying to lessen the regulatory burden on natural health product companies, it could open the door to companies that do not have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

Under the current laws and regulations, the Minister of Health has a number of important powers. They can order a product recall. They can require changes to labels or packaging. They can request additional information about a product when they suspect that it poses a serious risk to human health. They can also issue fines against companies that refuse to take unsafe products off the shelves. These are all important tools to protect consumers, and Bill C-224 would get rid of them.

I do not think that was the goal of Bill C-224. The bill's sponsor, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, has been very passionate about this. He has been an advocate for natural health products going back to the previous Parliament, when he introduced the forerunner of this bill, Bill C-368, which had many of the same provisions. I will pause here to note that one important difference between Bill C-368 and Bill C-224 is that Bill C-224 does not exempt nicotine products from the Food and Drugs Act, which is a significant improvement.

Both bills are understandable attempts to help natural health product companies continue to grow and thrive. This is a goal that all of us in this House share. It is certainly a goal of our new government. It is why we have been working closely with natural health products industry stakeholders as part of our red tape review to streamline and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Thanks to the red tape review, Health Canada is shifting to a risk-based approach to oversight that will reduce premarket requirements for natural health products, while shifting direct oversight and resources to higher-risk areas. It has also put a pause on new labelling requirements and continues to work with natural health product companies to address their concerns.

We recognize that a key part of working with the natural health products industry is flexibility. We cannot apply a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach. One of the important pieces of legislation passed by the previous government was Bill C-69, which gave the Minister of Health the flexibility to respond to urgent and emerging regulatory challenges as they arise, with tailored solutions. In a world where both industry and the government are constantly facing evolving challenges, this kind of flexibility is essential. This important work needs to continue, and I think there is room within Bill C-224 to allow it to continue.

We also need to make sure that there are rules and regulations in place to protect Canadian consumers. When Canadians reach for products on store shelves, they need to have confidence in their safety and trust that the labels accurately represent the products. If they do not have that confidence and they cannot trust the products they are buying, it will hurt the entire natural health products industry and, by extension, our economy.

There is an important balance that we need to find. I have heard that word a lot in the debate today, and I hope we can find it in this bill at the committee stage. Let us make sure that it strikes the right balance to ensure that Canadians can have peace of mind when it comes to the products they buy and that Canadian natural health product companies have the tools they need to grow and thrive.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

In line with what I was saying earlier, the third amendment sought to prevent a model involving fines from being inappropriately applied to small and medium-sized businesses.

We wanted to ensure the industry was safe while guaranteeing its long-term survival and preserving consumers' freedom to choose between a natural health product and a pharmaceutical product, or sometimes both. Just because Health Canada was not able to do its job, that does not mean that an entire industry should be destroyed. That is the crux of the issue.

When Bill C-368 was being studied at committee, we managed to come to an agreement. The Liberals were reluctant at first, but they eventually came around. Many of them supported the opposition parties' approach. The NDP members completely agreed, and so did the Liberals, to some extent. When a member is part of the government, it is hard for them to repudiate an initiative that comes from one of the most important government institutions, namely Health Canada, and its minister, who was probably misled.

It is worth noting that ministers come and go, but senior public servants stay. At some point, it will be important to examine who really holds power within the government. I think it is time to start thinking about the power of the administration, which is not accountable to anyone and is not sitting on an ejection seat.

Mistakes were made, things moved too quickly, an attempt was made to hide something that looked good on camera, namely tightening the rules. If Health Canada is unable to enforce the rules, then why did it go from saying that 91% of natural health product companies were compliant in 2015 to suddenly claiming that 88% are no longer compliant? Well, that 88% refers to the 75 companies that we knew were problematic and that had been flagged as examples so that Health Canada could be asked why it was not doing its job.

The industry wants criteria. What criteria will be used during visits and inspections? I have talked to everyone in the industry, and it is obvious that they want clear rules and enforcement of regulations. That is why I am not asking my colleague who introduced this bill for permission to table my amendments. I am just surprised that all the work done in committee, which everyone agreed on, was not included in Bill C-224. If it had been, we could have fast-tracked this bill rather than rehash all the meetings. It should be noted that, as a result of our work, Health Canada had already begun to make concessions, particularly on labelling and cost recovery.

However, the government seems to want to go backwards, claiming that Bill C‑224 is no good and that Bill C‑47 is the bill that matters. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told us this morning. That is shameful.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support of the bill in the last Parliament and for his thoughtful analysis. The member was very thoughtful in his deliberations and his approach to dealing with Bill C-368. He will note that the bill is not exactly the same. One of the amendments that was put forward at the committee stage the last time dealt with exempting nicotine, so I included that through the definition in this particular bill, but there are other amendments that my colleague would likely bring back to the committee.

The member does not need my permission to do that, so I would encourage my colleague to actually talk to the industry associations and Canadians who might have had some concerns with the amendments that he brought forward, and make sure he gets them on side.

At this particular point, the bill that I have tabled before the House belongs to the House. I want to get it passed here at second reading, and the place for those amendments to be proposed is at committee, but the member does not need my permission to do it. He should ask Canadians and the industry associations that represent them whether they agree with the wording and the nuances of the wording that were in those amendments. In principle, I support the amendments that he put forward in the last Parliament.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that Bill C-224 is basically the same as Bill C-368, which was scrapped when the election was called. The Bloc Québécois had made amendments to Bill C‑368 to strike a balance between people's concern for their safety and the need to avoid destroying an industry.

Could my colleague give me a clear answer this morning about whether he will support our amendments, like he did the last time when all the parties agreed to our amendments?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

moved that Bill C-224, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to rise for the second Parliament in a row to present a bill to restore the traditional definition of natural health products.

Canadians watching at home might recall that back in the last Parliament, in 2023, the Trudeau government of the day introduced Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, which redefined natural health products. Basically, they had a stand-alone regulatory body that had its own regulations and legislation. The government of the day changed that to make natural health products regulated the same way as therapeutic drugs, which has meant that all the processes Health Canada uses to pre-approve sites and pre-approve natural health products are now the same as those for therapeutic drugs.

This has meant that getting something as simple as a vitamin B complex to the marketplace is just as complicated and potentially as convoluted as getting a new cancer treatment drug to the marketplace. Of course, the government's intention through Bill C-47's change to the definition was to do cost recovery on the natural health product industry the same way that it is done in the pharmaceutical industry. Given that big pharmaceutical industries have billions of dollars of research and development funds and have a completely regulated allopathic health care system, natural health products cannot compete in that space.

We will talk more about that red tape, but I just want to be clear with Canadians that there was no consultation at the time that Bill C-47 was brought in. As a matter of fact, there was no debate. I could not find anything the government said at the time about natural health products. They were just tucked into the massive omnibus budget implementation act. The Natural Health Products Protection Association had no idea. The Canadian Health Food Association had no idea. The Direct Sellers Association of Canada had no idea. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business did not know. This plan was hatched in a back room, where Health Canada officials, I am assuming, basically duped the minister of the day, Mark Holland, into putting this into the budget implementation act.

It created a firestorm of activity. Parliamentarians who were here in the last Parliament will remember the various campaigns that were initiated by Canadians across the country, whether it is the Natural Health Products Protection Association's campaign or the Canadian Health Food Association's “Save Our Supplements” campaign. I have a stack of cards from concerned Canadians in my office, as I think the Speaker does as well, that is at least two feet high.

Canada's Parliament is supreme in this matter, and that should not be overlooked by Health Canada officials who want to have their way all the time when Canadians are concerned. Our job as parliamentarians is to make sure that the laws and regulations thereunder reflect what Canadians' wishes are. Overwhelmingly, Parliament has been told time and time again by Canadians, whether they are involved in the business directly or are consumers, that they do not want their government to treat natural health products like they are therapeutic drugs. They want the traditional definition restored.

If we go back to 1998, there were 53 recommendations in the health committee report suggesting that natural health products be regulated, classified and categorized on their own. There was opposition when an attempt was made to change the law in 2014 by the creation of Vanessa's Law. The thought was that Health Canada could sneak health products in under the Vanessa's Law rubric.

There was push-back on that at that particular point in time, which led to massive industry consultation with Canadians. Of course, natural health products have been regulated on their own since that time in 2014-15. This actually created an opportunity, because of the consultations of the previous Harper government, for the natural health products industry to flourish and become the gold standard, or at least it was the gold standard for a number of years, until Bill C-47 was passed.

The bill in the previous Parliament was Bill C-368. It is now Bill C-224. I just want to say how important it is that Canadians understand that if the bill does not pass, Health Canada will have the power to regulate natural health products as if they are therapeutic drugs. We need to undo that. It is a cash grab by Health Canada, to basically charge the fees that it wants to charge. It was called the self-care framework for a time. This would massively increase the cost of creating a site licence and it would also massively increase the cost of getting a product to market.

Prior to Bill C-47, Canada was an icon and had the highest standard of regulations for natural health products globally. The International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations, IADSA, in its written submission at committee on Bill C-368 in the previous Parliament, said:

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.

That is the same shape the Harper administration left the natural health products industry in. There are precisely the same challenges with the changes proposed in Bill C-47. It has undone all of that good work and created uncertainty in this environment.

Our brand is very reputable, or at least it was. For products, manufacturers and distributors across the world, if a product had a natural product number and the made-in-Canada symbol on the label, it was trusted pretty much globally. A natural health product sold around the world that was developed, processed and regulated in Canada was trusted to be safe. The contents in the bottle matched the contents on the label or matched the labelling requirements. That was our reputation, but that is not the case anymore.

The changes that have been proposed under Bill C-47 and the self-care framework are basically going to create licence fees that would stop or wipe out a lot of manufacturers. This is for traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda medicine, homeopathy and so on. This is very concerning because 80% of Canadians use these products.

The cost-recovery framework that was proposed would have new product fees of up to $4,000 per product. If we look at traditional Chinese medicine, the ingredients are combined to get a very select remedy for clients. If a fee had to be paid every time the ingredients were combined to make a traditional Chinese medicine product, that would make it virtually impossible for traditional Chinese medicine practitioners to be effective and sell their products at a price point that users of traditional Chinese medicine could afford. It would wipe out traditional Chinese medicine.

This would have a huge impact on our economy at a time when job numbers are not necessarily great. There are 54,000 direct employees in Canada who are working in this space. If we were to lose a wide swath of traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine and all of these things, it would be a tremendous loss to our economy.

I want to be clear that this was done under the previous Trudeau administration. Gender-based analysis was a big issue for the previous administration, but when this change was imposed, there was no gender-based analysis done on the impacts of changing the traditional definition of therapeutic products in Bill C-47.

Over 80% of natural health products consumers are women, while 90% of practitioners are women. Over 50% of the micro-businesses are female- or women-owned, and 84% of direct sellers are women. That is what the impact would be on the Canadian economy if we continue down this road of making the natural health products space uncompetitive. We would lose businesses in Canada.

Let me remind people where the starting point was. We were already the best regulated environment in the world. We did not need to do any of this in Bill C-47. We were the safest already. Over 80% of Canadians use natural health products. There were several audits done by the industry, by Deloitte and so on, that basically debunked all of the claims that Health Canada was making to justify what it was doing. It claimed it was for consumer protection, but the reality is that very few people, in any way, shape or form, are harmed by natural health products.

Where are we? We have more red tape, more costs and less choice for consumers. We are also in an environment right now where, south of the border, there are several states, such as Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, South Carolina and Nevada, that are actively using tax incentives to draw health businesses into their areas of responsibility. In Canada, we have a 90-day personal use import system where anybody can order online and have their natural health products brought in from a non-Canadian jurisdiction with the same level of regulatory framework. Regulatory checks and pre-market approvals for sites and products all happen in Canada. That is why we have the gold standard when it comes to regulations.

That is not what our main competitor in the United States does at all. It has a post-market regulatory framework, which means that anybody who has a business in Canada and who is looking at the uncompetitive environment, and most of these business people are women, would be looking at the United States, saying that they could move their business down there, start manufacturing, have a tax incentive to do so and still ship to Canada. They would not have to deal with any of the burdens and red tape of pre-market approvals for a site or a product, and simply have some post-market regulations in the United States, but still ship to Canada without even any tariffs on those personal-use imports.

This is the environment we are facing here in Canada. It is one we should be very concerned about. We should be making sure that we do not overburden the Canadian space, because this market is worth $5.5 billion in products every year. That is over $200 million just in GST alone, and the cost of the natural health products directorate is only $50 million a year. This industry pays for itself in spades, and we are not even talking about the health benefits for Canadians, which keep them out of the allopathic health care system, or the regulated health care system, that we have here in Canada.

Really, it comes down to choice. Consumers want to be able to take care of themselves. Mothers want to take care of their families and their children. People are looking for alternative health care measures all of the time when the regular health care system is not providing them any relief.

Anybody who says that Health Canada does not have enough power right now is simply missing the point. As a matter of fact, the Auditor General has said that Health Canada was not already using the powers it had pre-Bill C-47. With its current powers, it can stop the sale of any natural health product it wants.

Health Canada has border powers for personal-use imports. If it chooses to change the regulations or do more to keep Canadians safe from health products that are coming in from offshore, it can do so. It can seize any product any time it wants. It can revoke a site licence from a manufacturer, a packager, a labeller or an importer any time it wants. It can mandate a label change, for example, to add a warning, to any of the manufacturers here in Canada. It can inspect any place that has a site licence any time it wants. It has already done so. It is called good manufacturing practices. It has that ability to do so. It can inspect any product off the shelf by sending it to a lab, doing an analysis and making sure the contents in the bottle match the contents on the label. It can revoke a natural product number.

These are the massive, sweeping powers that Health Canada already had prior to Bill C-47, so the arguments that Health Canada is using, that it needs massive new powers to keep Canadians safe, simply do not hold water.

I also want to expand on the fact that health products are now being regulated as therapeutic products, so the fine structures for therapeutic products now apply to health products. Some of these fines can be up to $5 million a day for non-compliance. This makes sense for a large global therapeutic or biomedical company, but it does not make sense for a mom-and-pop shop that is trying to create some new natural remedies or a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.

This is a ridiculous change that simply did not need to happen. It puts a chill in the industry and a chill in investment. Nobody wants to operate or take any risks in that particular structure.

In closing, I want to thank Canadians from coast to coast who have written to parliamentarians and who have put pressure on their MPs. I will just advise them that they need to continue to do that because there will be a vote on this. I know that we need to make the changes to get natural health products back to their traditional definition and classification. We need colleagues to get this bill to committee so that we can go through it again.

I urge everybody to listen to Canadians. It is time to have some true consultation on this process. I want to thank all of the industry association reps, Natural Health Product Protection Association, the Canadian Health Food Association and everybody else who has lobbied so hard to protect these vital, important businesses and this vital, important space for Canadians.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-224, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products).

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to table my private member's bill to reverse the changes that the government made in Bill C-47 with regard to the definition of natural health products. In the last Parliament, the bill was known as Bill C-368.

Eighty per cent of Canadians use natural health products, and virtually everybody in the industry was against the changes that the government made in Bill C-47. They want to restore the traditional definition of natural health products and not have them included in the same definition as therapeutic products, which are drugs with large pharmaceutical companies.

There was great support for my legislation across Canada. Canadians thought the bill was very popular in the last Parliament. I had the support of other political parties in this place. I truly hope that the government this time changes its position, much like it has changed its position on pipelines, changed its position on criminal justice, changed its position on carbon taxes and changed its position on virtually everything it has been doing wrong for the last 10 years, and actually gets behind my bill.

This is what Canadians want. This is what Canadians expect Parliament to do. In fact, when Health Canada did its consultations, it had over 3,000 people respond to the proposed changes in Bill C-47. There were two in favour and everybody else was against it. It is time the government take these things into consideration.

I am very happy to table this bill, and I look forward to the debate and the support of everybody in the House this time.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, it is too bad the hecklers were not listening.

Corruption and decay go hand in hand. As such, when we say that everything feels broken, we say it because we mean it. The country is in decay, and the government's rotten influence is running rampant, spoiling every single thing it touches, including even those programs and services for which there is consensus in all corners of the House. The consensus regarding immigration is another great example of something that this Prime Minister has now destroyed.

My colleague, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, said in one of his speeches that this is corruption like we have never seen in Canada. I believe that he is correct in his assessment of the situation, with one exception: There is probably one other prime minister who could rival the current profligate spending and graft, and that is the Prime Minister's father. It seems like every time we have a prime minister with that last name, the country ends up on edge. This Liberal rot extends far beyond the SDTC. It now touches every facet of Canadian society and its institutions.

Members can take the natural health product industry, for instance, and I will tie that in. The government took a world-leading regulatory regime, implemented by the previous Harper government, and ripped it up as if it meant nothing. It did not bother to consult with the industry, either. That would have obviously been beneath it. Instead of continuing with the existing framework, the government, led by the inept Minister of Health, decided to move natural health products into the same regime as therapeutic drugs, contrary to previous parliamentary studies and general consensus that vitamins and supplements are not the same things as doctor-prescribed medications. These changes would devastate the natural health product industry. The IADSA, the International Alliance of Dietary Food Supplement Associations, had this to say about the changes that are being proposed by the current government here in Canada:

We are writing today to express our concerns about the regulatory changes being proposed in Canada, which, if implemented, could impact not only the competitive position of the dietary supplement industry within your country but also Canada's position as a global reference point in this area.

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.

Those are probably the most glowing words we could hear from an international organization, touting the regime created by the Harper administration for natural health products as being the gold standard against which every other country is measured. Now it is writing to our committee and to members of Parliament saying that if we pursue the current agenda of the Liberal government, with the support of the NDP, through Bill C-47 and the self-care framework that the regulatory framework entails, we will actually destroy the gold standard, the gold star, the institution that the rest of the world should be modelling itself after and designing itself after.

As a response to the illogical and unwarranted attack on the natural health product industry, I did introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-368, to bring the industry back to the old regulatory regime, yet the government is not done with its attacks. Let me explain to the people at home why an election is so important.

In early spring, the government plans to implement its cost recovery framework through the gazetting process. Bill C-368 may have passed second reading in this place and it may have passed the committee stage, but it is yet to be debated at third reading in the House and passed. It would then have to go to the Senate to go through that same set of steps and processes all over again, all before the next election.

Given that the timeline is probably getting to be fairly unlikely, the government is still free, then, and still has the old legislation it passed in Bill C-47 and Bill C-69, to pursue the regulatory environment to implement the self-care framework. This is a self-funding model that is behind the changes to begin with.

It is a tax grab on the industry to get the people in the small and medium-sized mom-and-pop shops, which are small businesses that create, innovate and develop all the supplements, such as vitamins, protein powders and things of this nature, under the same cost recovery framework that companies like Pfizer or Purdue Pharma would have to actually be under. Nobody in the industry has this kind of money. It is a death sentence for the natural health product industry.

Every day that the government has care and control of the Governor in Council, the ability to pass regulatory changes, it is still allowed, notwithstanding Bill C-368, to pursue this framework. The Minister of Health has said very clearly that he is hell-bent on destroying this institution as well. The government will implement the self-care framework.

For the Canadians who are watching, this is very important. There are two parties so far in the House that have voted non-confidence in the government so we could have an election. An election would kill the ability of the government to pursue the regulatory change to the natural health product industry. It would not be able to gazette anything during an election. At the outcome of the next election, hopefully there is a government that will cease destroying the natural health product industry in Canada.

This is why it is very important that the one party that continues to support the government be held accountable. It is continuing to support the government, even though it may have supported my bill in some bizarre manners. I might add that a member on the health committee actually tried to move a wrecking motion to destroy the bill at committee. Luckily he was granted a time out, heard from tens of thousands of Canadians and changed his ways, and we managed to salvage Bill C-368 at committee.

However, every day that the New Democratic Party continues to prop up the government brings us one day closer to a gazetting process for the self-care framework, which will put the cost recovery model burden on the natural health product industry. That is what will destroy the innovation and growth and destroy the gold standard model that the IADSA says is the best one in the world. That is what is at stake.

We need an election, not just because of all of the other corruption but also because of all the bad ideas. I said that earlier in my speech. Never has there been such a collection of bad ideas, bad judgment and bad leadership in one human being as there is in the current Prime Minister.

I use this example because it is a microcosm of what is wrong with the government. The Liberals cannot work collaboratively anymore. They have no friends left. No one is defending them. I cannot imagine why they are staying the course, because nothing is getting passed in this place. It is only to pursue the regulatory power and authority that they still have that they are clutching on to government. Who is the enabler? It is the New Democratic Party.

One can only conclude that that is the true agenda, even though others might not say so publicly. There is no doubt in my mind that that is what is going on. For those who are watching, what is at risk for the natural health product industry if we do not have an election sooner rather than later is that another gold standard institution will be ruined by the incompetence of the government.

To get back to SDTC, the crux of the matter is document production. Without documents, how are we to hold the government accountable for anything? We in the Conservative Party have asked for documents numerous times, and not just in this particular example. We have asked for them constantly, in every committee.

I happen to be a member of the procedure and House affairs committee at this time. We have asked for document productions many times. We were denied access to documents that members of the media had access to during the foreign interference scandal, for example. Members of the media can see documents that I as an elected member of Parliament have never been able to see, because the Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, whether it is in the House or at committee, always denies Parliament getting access to unredacted documents. It does not matter what the issue is.

In this particular case, it just happens to be the documents surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada. If Canadians are wondering why we are making such a big fuss about it, it is because this is the line in the sand. It has been crossed so many times. It was even crossed in the previous Parliament to the point that an election was called to prevent documents for the Winnipeg labs from being tabled in this place. We had someone summoned to the bar, which I do not think had happened for 113 years, who refused to bring documents when he was here. He was admonished by the Speaker of this place.

Also, the government, so self-righteous in its determination to keep things secret, actually took the previous Speaker to court. Everybody knows courts have always said that Parliament is supreme in the matters of its own governance, but that did not stop the government from pursuing that matter, so desperate it was to hide what it had done and to keep it from Canadians.

Here we are at an impasse. We are several months into it, and there is only one political party in this place that does not want to turn over the documents. It is that of the government. All the other parties to date are allowing this debate to continue until the government does what it is supposed to do and what the Speaker has asked it to do. As the Speaker has said, “The House has the undoubted right to order the production of any and all documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties.”

Some $400 million of taxpayers' money was inappropriately spent, and 186 conflicts of interest were identified by the Auditor General. This is taxpayers' money. This is a government program. If this is not a textbook case of documents that Parliament should be able to see, then, frankly, I do not know what else would be.

I will wrap up my comments by saying this. A number of us in this place tonight have been here for a long time. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, if I am not on my feet again by the time I return, I will have eclipsed the 19th anniversary of my first election to this place. I have never seen a House of Commons in this much disarray, and I have never seen a government that has lost complete and utter control of the finances of the country and of law and order on the streets. It has lost control of itself and the ability to follow the rules of this place. Shame on them.

Health

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C‑368, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products).

The committee has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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 only 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, 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 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.

Second reading

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

Madam Speaker, there is a joke going around that says, “It's not knowing that a politician can be bought; it's knowing how little they'll let themselves go for.” For a member of the NDP caucus right now thinking that this is the misery they are suffering in the polls, the misery they are suffering nationwide, which is the same misery Canadians are suffering, this is all they managed to get out of the supply and confidence arrangement with the government today.

It is not a pharmacare program. Health care is actually a provincial jurisdiction. It should be delivered by the provinces. The bill would simply be adding contraceptives and some diabetes measures into it. I guess, on the surface of it, that is a good thing, but to the tune of $1.5 billion. If viewers watching at home actually believe this is all it is going to cost them, I will remind them that the government bought a $7 billion pipeline and built it for about $40 billion. Therefore, if history is any predictor of the future when it comes to what things cost under a Liberal-NDP coalition, then they should be looking at least to that example if not more.

To us, as Conservatives, the issue is one of provincial jurisdiction. I come from Alberta, and this is a very important issue to our province and to our premier. This is just another intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. We think that, during these financial times, when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, pouring more fuel on the inflationary fire is certainly not going to help. It is another financial albatross in the making, which Canadians cannot afford and are not willing to pay for.

It is not just me saying this, and it is not just Conservatives saying this. John Ivison eloquently stated in a piece that he published back on February 29, when the bill or this notion first came out, that this is “the woebegone child of a loveless Liberal-NDP marriage.” This is basically what we are dealing with.

It has become clear to me that the bill before us is basically the cost of keeping the NDP support for this Parliament under supply and confidence, and the coalition partners can take this until October 2025. It was supposed to be October 20, but it is going to be extended by another week to make sure that certain people here get the financial benefits they think they are entitled to. However, it just goes to show that there is only one serious opposition in the House, and that is the Conservative Party.

The NDP is not an opposition party but a willing accomplice to everything that the Liberal government has in its agenda. Its members have been witting partners in creating a massive inflationary deficit; setting restrictive policies towards, for example, lawful gun owners and natural health products, which they signed up for two years ago without even knowing they were going to vote in favour of that in Bill C-47 last year; impeding upon provincial jurisdiction time and time again, which is, of course, front and centre with this piece of legislation; continuing to cover up for the government's scandals, covering for it at committee and also here in the House of Commons; introducing soft-on-crime legislation or supporting that soft-on-crime legislation, which has turned our justice system into a revolving door; sending Canadians to food banks en masse, at a couple of million visitors, which is up over 300%; allowing housing prices to skyrocket; and neglecting our military to the point where our soldiers are basically relying on food donations while they are in Ottawa for training. I could continue, but I think members get the gist of what I am trying to say.

It is bad enough that NDP members backed budget after budget and shut down our work to hold the government to account at committee, but they are telling Canadians that they are doing their actual work as an opposition party. Well, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot be in opposition while they support everything that the government does. I do not buy it, and neither do Canadians.

A December 2023 Leger poll indicated that only 18% of Canadians listed the establishment of a national pharmacare program as a health care priority, and the promise was not included in the 2021 Liberal platform. Canadians did not vote for a party promising pharmacare, yet here we are, thanks to an NDP party that is keeping this weak and basically lame-duck government in office. It is no wonder that some provinces are already saying publicly that they are choosing to opt out.

Let it be known that the absence of the NDP as an opposition is also keenly felt in other areas. Just last year, as I was mentioning, the NDP-Liberal coalition passed Bill C-47.

I do not suppose anybody in the NDP was told, when they signed on to this supply and confidence agreement back in March 2022, that they would be asked to regulate natural health products in the same way as therapeutics, but they did it anyway. As a matter of fact, they made that commitment a year before the bill was passed, and it is going to basically shut down our supplements and natural health product industry when they are classified and rebranded as pharmaceutical drugs.

What did the New Democrats do when this came up for debate? They backed the budget instead of forcing the government to remove those four little clauses from Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. They had a chance. They could have flexed their muscles and said they were not going to support the budget implementation act unless the government removed them, but no such request was forthcoming, and the bill passed. It has caused unforeseen chaos in the natural health products and supplements industry across this country; consumers, of course, are rightly worried. In response, I had to table my own private member's bill, Bill C-368, to reverse these changes. This is just part and parcel.

New Democrats say one thing to Canadians but actually do another. Could anyone imagine such a thing as being the House leader of the NDP, for example, standing up and saying time and time again how much one does not like omnibus legislation, and yet gleefully passing Bill C-47. The NDP House leader has said this for the 18 years that he and I have been in the House together. However, he told the government that New Democrats would continue to pass every budget and every budget implementation act henceforth after March 2022. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot stand up and say New Democrats are going to hold the government to account while continuing to give it the keys to the house to do whatever it wants.

In the case of natural health product governance and regulations, New Democrats tell Canadians they are against omnibus legislation and that they are keeping the government accountable. However, as I said, they voted for Bill C-47, threw that industry into turmoil and then criticized me for giving them an off-ramp on the Bill C-368 debate last week. I was giving them a pathway to redemption, and all they could do was basically blame Stephen Harper for the mess that the country is in. I cannot even make this stuff up.

The most common questions I get from Canadians are these: When are we going to have an election? Who believes anything anybody in the NDP has to say anymore, when their actions are completely 180° opposite from what they say with their words?

It should also be highlighted that the bill was introduced with no public consultations whatsoever, which comes as no surprise to Conservatives. This piece of legislation has been pushed from a government with a terrible record on transparency. It is a government that regularly rushes massive changes with little regard for those people the changes may impact. It talks about the intended consequences, but it never fully understands the unintended consequences of the things it does, which is why we are in the mess we are in today.

The Conservative position on Bill C-64 is that the Liberals know this project is an expensive boondoggle. That is why they abandoned it in their 2019 election promise. Even former finance minister Bill Morneau noted in his book that a single-user system would cost an additional $15 billion a year. We cannot believe the $1.5 billion number, and that is why my colleagues here on the Conservative side and I will respect provincial jurisdiction and vote against this piece of legislation. We encourage New Democrats to change their ways before their party actually fades into oblivion forever.