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.

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.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To better understand the change proposed by amendment BQ-3, see paragraph 30(1.2)(f) on page 40 of the Food and Drugs Act.

Additionally, to provide some clear context, I'm going to read subsection 30(1.2), which appears under the heading “Regulations — therapeutic products”.

30(1.2) Without limiting the power conferred by any other subsection of this section, the Governor in Council may make regulations

Now going back to amendment BQ-3, I move that Bill C-368 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 1 the following new clause:

3.1 Subsection 30(1.2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (f): (f.01) respecting the recall of natural health products within the meaning of the Natural Health Products Regulations; (f.02) prescribing penalties for the contravention of subsection 21.3(3) in respect of a natural health product within the meaning of the Natural Health Products Regulations or of the regulations made under paragraph (f.01);

The industry and Health Canada people will have to discuss this amendment before the fines are determined. We will have to do things properly. As I've said from the outset, the fines imposed must be proportionate to the offences committed within the industry. We've discussed this at length and observed that the fines are disproportionate, which, incidentally, is why Bill C-368 was proposed.

Amendment BQ-3 would therefore make it possible to put regulations in place, and the current provisions would apply in the meantime.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That information is available.

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to be brief.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I encourage Mr. Naqvi to withdraw his amendment.

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

Again, just for clarity, is there another way, besides interfering with the passage of Bill C-368, that the department could deal with the issue of unintended diversion of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine from prescription, over-the-counter or natural health product sources?

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

Mr. Lee, again, I'll interrupt you. We understand that portion of it.

My point is if Bill C-368 did not exist.... I'm sorry. You've known that Bill C-368 has existed for some time, and I'm supposed to believe today that a substantive amendment brought forward by Mr. Naqvi with respect to this very specific but important problem would not have been able to be addressed anywhere else.

I'm also supposed to believe that he thought this up between Tuesday and today and that it shouldn't have been brought forward as an amendment on its own. Is that what I'm supposed to believe? I don't believe it.

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

Through you, Chair, what you're telling this committee is if Bill C-368, which was brought forward by my colleague, didn't exist, there would be no other way for your department to address pseudoephedrine or ephedrine getting into the wrong hands. Is that what you're telling me?

I'm sorry. I don't believe that, but if that's what you're telling me, that's what you're telling me.

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

Once again, here we are. We've been down this road with respect to natural health products many times.

Sir, this is not directed to be specifically negative toward you, but what we hear are these thinly veiled ideas that say, “Yes, this has happened,” but not one person has been able to give specific evidence or table it with this committee, nor has there been a desire, sadly, among the other members of this committee to have that information tabled for consideration. I think that's irresponsible of everybody who's raised a concern here.

We heard another group that said it had 700 adverse events. One of the adverse events it named was somebody reading a label wrongly and being dissatisfied with the product they had. Is that an adverse event? I don't think so.

Again, as I've said previously, 13,000 Canadian seniors are hospitalized every year because of prescription products. Does that mean they're bad? No. Does that mean we need to gut the regulations related to prescription drugs? I don't think so, but it might.

Now, here we are again. We're left with somebody saying, “I think there's been a report, or maybe there has been, and I don't know what the report is.” Nobody's showing it to me. Do you have it with you? Can you bring it up on your phone? Can you distribute it to the committee?

If you have that, it's appropriate here because once again, Mr. Naqvi, in his lack of preparedness, has foisted upon the committee a substantive amendment, which might be important for the safety of Canadians, but it might not be.

How could we possibly be expected to make a decision? If this is that important an amendment—once again, Mr. Naqvi should have done his homework—he should have submitted an amendment like everybody else around this table did. What do we have once again? Oh, this is a subamendment.

Chair, there is another thing I would ask you to consider. If this is that substantive a subamendment that it changes the original intent of the amendment, is it really admissible? That's a very significant thing to consider here, because we have not had any evidence provided to the committee to make an appropriate decision with respect to pseudoephedrine.

There's a difficulty for us as good legislators sitting around the table, especially given the fact that we're in the midst of a study here at the health committee on drugs and drug use within this country. We understand the difficulties associated therein. Certainly, we want to be cautious. I understand that. We can't reduce the risk to zero. The difficulty here, though, is we have a substantive amendment that's unsubstantiated.

The other part we need to understand clearly is that if this amendment fails to pass, do you have the ability under the Food and Drugs Act to make amendments outside of this particular bill, Bill C-368? Is there an ability to make amendments outside of Bill C-368 to protect Canadians from the potential diversion of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, whether it be from prescription, over-the-counter or natural health products?

Do you have that ability? Answer yes or no, but you don't have to just answer yes or no; you can expand on it, if you so desire.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, I'll introduce it.

Amendment BQ‑2 is to allow the minister's right of recall. Industry people told us that there was no problem in this area and that only bad actors would be affected. In addition, Health Canada told us that very few bad actors didn't co‑operate.

It's important to know that recalls are voluntary and that this isn't a problem. However, we were also told that the industry values its reputation and that it wanted to ensure that bad actors were punished. That's why I'm adding this element, which aims to maintain the current regulations and to restore a certain number of sections of the Food and Drugs Act.

This is amendment BQ‑2.

I move that Bill C‑368 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 2.2: 2.21 Despite the definition of therapeutic product in section 2, sections 21.3 to 21.303 and regulations made under paragraphs 30(1.2)(f.01) and (f.02) apply to a in section 2, subsections 21.3 to 21.303 and regulations made under subsections 30(1.2)(f.01) and (f.02) apply to a natural health product within the meaning of the Natural Health Products Regulations.

I would like to clarify that subsections 30(1.2)(f.01) and (f.02) are part of amendment BQ‑3, which amends the penalties.

As I was saying, the minister's right to recall is guaranteed. We were asked whether there was a risk of serious harm to health. Subsection 21.3 responds to that. If there's no doubt that a health risk exists, which minister wouldn't want that authority?

This amendment takes nothing away from Bill C‑368 since it clarifies that under the natural health products regulations the minister will have a certain right of recall.

I have two pages of explanations, but I'll stop here, unless there's a problem.

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

I'll echo some of those comments. We are watering down Bill C-368 by these amendments because we learned here in committee very clearly that the current administration, the NDP-Liberal government, is unable or unwilling to amend the TVPA, the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act.

I think it's a shame that we have to water down a bill based upon the fact that the minister, whom we've had here at committee before, doesn't have a clue on how to amend the TVPA. We heard that from witnesses. We heard them say that this bill needs to be amended, because it would take too long for the NDP-Liberal government to figure out how to amend the TVPA. That's the job of a parliamentarian. However, that's obviously lost on the current federal Minister of Health, who is unable to do that, and clearly unable to do his job.

Therefore we're left with disappointing those stakeholders and those thousands and thousands of Canadians whom I know Mr. Thériault referred to, from whom he received emails, as did we on this side of the House, to say watering down this bill is not a great idea. They are very concerned about their access and very concerned about the collapse of the Canadian natural health product industry, as we heard from multiple testimonies.

Thank you, Chair.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are currently discussing Mr. Naqvi's motion, and I find it very galling for the Liberals to introduce such an amendment.

We wouldn't be discussing Bill C‑368 if the government had been transparent in the first place, and if it hadn't hidden Bill C‑47 in an omnibus bill, a mammoth bill, without partnering with industry. That isn't how we get things done in politics. We're here because there's been an attempt to give the industry a raw deal.

However, there was an intention behind that. It was to tighten up the rules and the legislative framework to ensure that bad actors or bad apples would be pushed out of the industry or that they paid for their bad reputations and actions that don't meet industry standards. That's why we need to get it right.

Remember, Mr. Chairman, that at one point, we had to have the minister and Health Canada officials appear before our committee to explain what was going on with the regulations. It wasn't even a study; it was a request. They came to give us explanations, and we realized that, with respect to the regulatory framework they wanted to create, particularly with regard to recovery costs, they were completely wrong. In fact, this meant that the model established for pharmaceutical products would be transposed into a natural health products model.

Whether the Liberals like Bill C‑368 or not, it's necessary. The basis of Bill C‑368 is necessary to create another legislative and regulatory environment for natural health products. That's what we're trying to do here, and that's what my amendments are trying to achieve, which is to strike a balance with respect to the interests of an industry. We don't want to destroy this industry because of a few bad actors. This pertains much more to small or medium-sized businesses than very large ones.

It was illogical and inconsistent to simply transpose the pharmaceutical model to another for natural health products. But we were good sports and we proposed amendments. People told us that they didn't want to question the basis of Bill C‑368, but they maintained that we were contravening the ministerial order, which had allowed us to replace nicotine products that aren't properly regulated, once again, because Health Canada did a bad job. We were told that there was a legal vacuum and that we shouldn't do that because it would give free rein to bad actors.

Those people came to warn us about the unintended consequence of Bill C‑368, and we listened to them. We proposed an amendment. I'm going to correct it again today, because people think we need to distinguish between nicotine-based products that are used as nicotine replacement therapy and tomatoes, cauliflower and eggplants. We received thousands and thousands of emails telling us to be careful when we say that a product contains nicotine. Vegetables and fruits contain nicotine. I'd have had to eat 10 kilos of eggplant today to reach the nicotine content of one cigarette.

Still in the spirit of calming things down and listening to everyone's comments, we changed the amendment in question to add clarification and ensure that Parliament's intent wasn't misunderstood.

What we're doing here today is paying attention to what people told us.

Industry representatives told us that they wanted to preserve its reputation. However, it doesn't make sense to impose fines of $5 million on the pharmaceutical industry, as planned. This explains our third amendment to Bill C‑368. This amendment will allow for discussions to establish the regulatory framework for appropriate fines.

That's what the government should have done. It should have had a proper discussion with people instead of trying to pull the wool over their eyes with an omnibus bill. That's not the way to do politics. Today, we're proposing a motion to, supposedly, amend Bill C‑368, on which there is a consensus on this side of the table, so that it can be passed in the House of Commons. However, this is a dilatory measure, but not in the way you understand it. The intent is to delay passage of Bill C‑368. We'll end up with a bill that we know full well won't pass the House in its current version.

For those reasons, I agree with Mr. Ellis. If the Liberals are acting in good faith, if they really listened to the people who came to testify and if they saw the turpitude of Health Canada, they'd do things differently. Witnesses told us they had evidence that the methodologies used are totally biased. Saying that 88% of an industry and over 900 companies aren't compliant is an aberration. They would fail a methodology 101 university course.

Personally, I'm not here to waste my time, but to find points of convergence and a balance so that everyone can benefit. Consumers need to regain their confidence in natural health products, and imposing an established pharmaceutical model isn't going to do that.

I hope that I've convinced my colleagues opposite to proceed with the study of Bill C‑368.

Finally, if I may, I move adjournment of the debate on the motion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank my colleague, Dr. Ellis, for his accurate assessment. I wish I could say I found it passing strange, Mr. Chair, but I've been in this place for a long time, as have you and as has the member for the New Democratic Party. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point by anything at all.

You would think, Mr. Chair, that a member of a political party that found itself in a situation where it accepted carte blanche everything that the minority government was going to do would be a little more gracious when offered a path to redemption on the issue of being able to rescind the clauses in Bill C-47, which Bill C-368 seeks to do. You would think that a member for the NDP would be gracious in accepting a path to redemption for his proposed amendment to this bill, which would have changed this bill in its entirety. Instead of accusing people of filibustering, you'd think he would have been gracious and said thank you for buying him the time to figure out that he was once again wrong, as he, I would argue, Mr. Chair, often is.

I appreciate the fact that he is now going to need unanimous consent, I believe, Mr. Chair, in order to withdraw his amendment. I'm just musing publicly on whether I should be as gracious as he has been to me in giving him that or whether I should actually say no and make him vote against his own amendment. That would be the fun thing to do, Mr. Chair, but I'll be the bigger person in this.

Hopefully, we will get to the point where we can withdraw NDP-1 and do the right thing on behalf of the industry that relies on getting this legislation and these regulations right and the 80% of Canadians who rely on natural health products.

I will enjoy taking the higher road.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 142 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

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

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

I'd like to welcome our witnesses, who are available as experts for any questions related to the legislation that members may have. From the Department of Health, we have David Lee, chief regulatory officer of the health products and food branch; and Kim Godard, director general of the health product compliance directorate.

I recognize Mr. Naqvi and then Mr. Julian.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

Certainly, I think the difficulty that my colleagues are having is, again, a lack of understanding of the industry. As we begin to look at safety, I think it is important that people have an idea that in taking some of these medications—even if they were to take them in inappropriate dosages, although that's not the idea—much of the time they are not harmful to folks. Not having that data to enable us to see that and to take that data, parse it out, look at it closely and say that this is a really important event, and this is a recurrent event....

We did not hear that from our friends at Health Canada—that there were recurrent events with certain substances—because I would suggest to you that they already have that ability to recall. I think we heard here previously in testimony from the officials who were here that even when a particular manufacturing facility had some struggles, when they were given the appropriate guidance, they actually made the appropriate choices and changed the difficulties they were having.

We heard very inflammatory language from the minister in attempting to say that there were difficulties. To repeat his words exactly, there was a factory “full of [rat] feces and urine”. I don't know why my colleagues want to present these disparaging remarks, whether they be from Mr. Julian or Minister Holland, with respect to the natural health product industry. I don't know why they would. For me, that doesn't really make any sense.

I'll go back to looking at other minerals, such as calcium and magnesium. Certainly we know that magnesium is a very safe mineral as well. People are often deficient in magnesium and don't realize it. They have to take significant and repeated doses of magnesium to attempt to get their levels back to a physiologic amount. We know, though, that taking significant amounts of magnesium could cause loose bowel movements. Are loose bowel movements a side effect of magnesium? When we're attempting to give you significant amounts to boost your levels, that makes it very difficult, but again, we don't know that, because we don't know what the data is.

If we'd had that data beforehand, I might be more inclined to say that one or another of these amendments makes perfect sense, or doesn't. Are there known side effects? Again, if we had the ability to understand what the data said, then that would give us a much more informed discussion.

I think the other thing we heard about a lot in this committee was related to nicotine-containing products. I find it fascinating that this committee is now in a grave hurry without enough data to push this Bill C-368 forward. We also know that we also heard the exact contrary opinion with respect to nicotine-containing products. We heard from officials, who sat over there, that this NDP-Liberal government cannot enact legislation quickly enough to keep up with the changes in nicotine-containing products. We also know about the sloppiness in how nicotine pouches were delivered to this country, and about how Health Canada officials, in collusion with Minister of Health number one, were unable to actually prevent this product from coming to Canadian shores.

Then when we suggested that legislation should be drafted specifically to deal with Canadian nicotine products, we heard about the sloppy nature of health minister number two in trying to clean up the mess of health minister number one. They were unable to do that in a timely fashion to be able to keep up with the industry.

Now, as we begin to look at nicotine-containing products, the other difficulty is related to contraband cigarettes. These are obviously manufactured in a factory as well. That raises the question of why the CFIA is not out there inspecting those factories and getting contraband cigarettes out of the mouths and hands of Canadians.

I find it fascinating that we are required to fast-track Bill C-368 at the behest of Mr. Julian and that this is taking too much of his time when the NDP-Liberal coalition finds it impossible to create legislation with respect to nicotine-containing products.

What we do know, though, is that more youth are turning to vapes and flavoured vapes, which they are actually purchasing online and which are something that a future government—a future Conservative government—must actually tackle.

We also know that they do not have the ability to look at nicotine-containing products such as nicotine pouches and how that actually fits into the legislation. When we look at the nicotine-containing pouches, I find it distressing, because they were actually brought in under the natural health product regulation, which directly relates to their being a smoking cessation aid.

Now, I hope that all of my colleagues did their background research. I suspect that Dr. Powlowski and perhaps Dr. Hanley did, not to be disparaging to others. When you look at nicotine pouches as a smoking cessation aid, you see that the likelihood of having evidence to support them as a smoking cessation aid is almost zero. There have been no studies done. There's no ability to say how many milligrams of nicotine in a pouch or if x amount of nicotine in a vape product is equivalent to x number of cigarettes, and how long you would stay at a certain milligram level of nicotine and then move down to the next lower amount of nicotine. Those studies do not exist.

Sadly, on behalf of Canadians, that is exactly how minister number two, also known as Holland, decided to deal with nicotine pouches. It was to say that these are a smoking cessation aid and, with much fanfare, bombast and foolishness, he said that they must be sold only in pharmacies because they're a smoking cessation aid.

The problem with that, of course, is that there is absolutely no evidence to say that these are a smoking cessation aid, and there's no pathway forward for pharmacists to be able to prescribe or guide prospective patients to use nicotine pouches to stop smoking. If that doesn't exist and if these are only being sold in pharmacies, the difficulty then is that pharmacists have not developed the ability to identify and ID folks who may be underage and purchasing these products.

As we start to look at that, where does some of that expertise exist? Well, I find it absolutely fascinating that nicotine-containing pouches are sold—and again, I'm not meaning to be disparaging to my pharmacist colleagues—in an environment that does not have expertise in identifying folks but are not being sold in an environment also known as a “convenience store”, which does have the ability to ID folks. They have a long history there, and whether we all around this table like it or not, convenience stores are the places that do sell cigarettes and other tobacco-containing products.

In some instances, they also sell alcohol, which is precisely why I would suggest that when we look at regulations with respect to nicotine-containing products, convenience stores may be a very reasonable place to sell nicotine pouches, since the regulations that were brought forward by health minister number two are wholly untrue and inadequate to deal with nicotine-containing products such as pouches.

As we sit here in committee and say that we should push forward without the data that would make us a much better-informed committee on behalf of Canadians with respect to natural health products, I think it is a shame that those around this table from the NDP and the Liberals have allowed shade to be cast upon an incredible industry employing thousands of Canadians to the tune of $13 billion.

As we begin to look at that and understand the economic consequences, Joel Thuna was another great witness who was here and has been in this business. I believe, colleagues—correct me if I'm wrong—that he has been in the natural health product business for more than 50 years. He is also a proponent of teaching others how to grow natural health products. I can't remember exactly; perhaps they were herbs like oregano and other spices that some folks may believe help to maintain your health.

He also made it very clear that he is not just a proponent of the industry but is also a resource within the industry and will take on newcomers to the industry so that they understand what good manufacturing practices are and where to look inside Canada for growers who have the ability to produce substances that Canadians want to use that don't have contaminants in them. He presented a very collegial attitude that exists inside the natural health product industry. He has, of course, as I said, been in this country doing this business for 50 years, and I think that would certainly qualify him as an expert.

I would also go on to say that he made it clear that recommitting natural health products to therapeutic products would pose a difficulty to folks in this industry, in the sense that most of those businesses would be forced to move all of their business ventures to the United States.

As we start to look at the anti-business environment that the NDP-Liberal government has created, we also know that many business interests have already moved south of the border and that investment in Canadian industry has gone down, and that's creating a significant problem with respect to Canada's GDP. We also look at the unfortunate case of the Canadian dollar, which sits now at less than 70 cents. That creates a difficulty as well.

One of the other things I think would be important and is a question that I would have to ask....

Perhaps, Chair, I might pause for a second. Obviously, it's Thursday. There are folks who don't live here. If there are folks who have flights and they would like to consider an adjournment, I would be okay with that, but if not, I would be quite happy to continue.

I'm trying to be collegial. If you would allow me not to cede the floor but to simply ask that question, I'd be quite happy to do that, sir.