Bill C-224

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

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

Food and Drugs Act

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the member opposite because I do not think he is being fully transparent about the issue.

There are many Canadians who have a genuine concern about the issue of contamination. Does the member believe that there are no concerns related to contamination and that Canadians have nothing to be concerned about with this issue? After all, we have seen Health Canada issue recalls in certain situations. Does the member believe Health Canada plays no role in this? To what degree does the member see the value of providing Canadians assurances through Health Canada that the products they are consuming are safe?

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

Madam Speaker, I guess I reject the premise of the question. I never said that Health Canada did not have a role to play.

As a matter of fact, had the member been listening to my speech, he would have heard me say that Health Canada, prior to Bill C-47, had the power to stop any sale of any natural health product that is regulated in this country. That product cannot be sold as a natural health product until it has a natural product number, which means that natural health products have to be pre-approved. Nothing can happen post-market access. Everything is approved before it even gets to the market.

Health Canada has border powers for personal-use imports. It has seizure powers to seize a product that it thinks might be unsafe. It can revoke a site licence for a manufacturer, a packager, a labeller or an importer. It can mandate any label change if it is concerned about the contents inside the bottle not matching what is on the label. It can inspect any site to look for contamination issues all it wants. It can even stop that site from continuing to produce things.

The hon. member's question seems to indicate that there are no authorities and powers right now, but nothing could be further from the truth.

[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]

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.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I presented petition e-4474 on this matter, with 15,000 signatures from across Canada of individuals who were concerned with the new changes to natural health products. These changes would really impact a lot of our small and medium-sized businesses that provide natural health products. In Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, we have areas where a lot of people are proactive with their health care and are using natural health products.

The member gave an awesome presentation of the bill. I think we are going to have success with this across Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, and I thank him and all my colleagues here in the Conservative benches for the support of the bill. I want to thank my colleagues from the NDP, Green Party and the Bloc Québécois who supported the bill in the last Parliament, and I look forward to their continued support and their constructive feedback.

I am also looking forward to making sure that we get back to the traditional definition of natural health products. That is what Canadians want. That is what they elected us to do. Let us do it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, before I get to the debate on Bill C-224, I just want to make quick reference to something that embodies a great deal of national pride from coast to coast to coast here in Canada: the Grey Cup.

We had a wonderful celebration in the city of Winnipeg, hosting the Montreal Alouettes along with the Saskatchewan Roughriders. Canadians were entertained by a first-class football game. I know that my colleague and good friend from northern Saskatchewan is a big Riders fan and was very pleased with the outcome, but I think it is safe to say that all football fans got to be entertained with a first-class Canadian football game.

We congratulate the city of Winnipeg, the residents and the organizers, from the commissioner all the way down to the volunteers, on having a very successful 112th Grey Cup, and we look forward to Grey Cup 2026, which I think will stay in the Prairies. I believe it will go to Calgary, followed by Regina.

I just wanted to acknowledge that right at the get-go.

I appreciate what the member is trying to bring forward in the form of a private member's bill. When I think of natural health products, I think of two aspects. One is the consumer, and there is absolutely no doubt that Canadians all over our country actually participate in the consumption of natural health products. They are very widely used. I have visited stores to look at ways I can improve my health. At age 63, maybe it is more of an interest; I am not 100% sure, but I do see the value of natural health products, and I also recognize the size and magnitude of the industry.

It is an industry that has provided jobs for Canadians. It has provided all sorts of opportunities for Canadians. I do not question the value of that industry, and hopefully it will continue to grow. I do not think there is anyone within the Liberal caucus who wants to prevent the industry from growing. The more growth we see within that industry, quite frankly, the better it is, but I also believe at the same time that the Conservatives need to take into consideration the well-being, health and safety of Canadians in general, because not all items they are referencing are actually produced here in Canada.

I take a great sense of pride in the work that Health Canada does for our nation. On a wide variety of products, it plays an incredibly important role. In some areas, I do believe there is an opportunity and in fact a need for us to actually look at ways in which Health Canada might even be able to strengthen our industry. Having more oversight is ultimately good for the industry, and when I reflect on Bill C-47, what I see is legislation that ensured that there would be more oversight of an industry that is really important to Canada.

When we talk about how we can grow our economy, we often talk about the benefits of being able to export. The member made reference to the importance of the maple leaf, and I agree with him on that part. A government-sanctioned maple leaf on a product carries a great deal of weight, not only here in Canada but also beyond our borders, and that is something we collectively should want to protect to ensure that its value is always held to the nth degree.

Among the industries around the world, we find the pharmaceutical and natural health product industries. The potential for growth in those industries is tremendous, and that is why I understand that there is some resistance even from within, in terms of Health Canada and the oversight issue. However, I truly believe that Health Canada's providing additional oversight, which was enabled through Bill C-47, puts Canada once again on a higher platform for us to be able to export products, and I am very much interested in exports because I believe that the market potential is great.

About a year ago, I was in the Philippines at a grocery store that was unique in that it was profiling Canadian products. It was quite encouraging to see the number of Canadian products being sold in Manila at a grocery store. When I was talking with the manager of the grocery store, he indicated that they could not get enough of the products coming from Canada, because the products from Canada were being so well received.

This is the type of thing that, I believe, we undersell, and I think there is so much more potential, and that is the reason the Prime Minister of Canada is today looking to the export markets of Asia and Europe, going beyond the United States border, which I see as a positive thing. When we think in terms of the natural health products and the industry we have here in Canada, there is a great deal of merit in asking whether there is a role that Health Canada plays, through the branding of our maple leaf, to actually advance the industry. I believe the answer to that is yes, which is why Bill C-47 had an important role.

I pose this question to the member opposite: What about the consumer? We know for a fact that Health Canada has issued recalls on some items that have been tainted. To what degree would the member be prepared to answer on that specific issue? I would argue that with the additional oversight, ultimately issues of recall, or contamination, if I can put it that way, would not happen, and we would be able to provide the consumer with much more of a guarantee for the product they are consuming.

More and more what I have found, especially in our younger generation, is that people are looking at ways to stay healthy. They are looking at options, which is something that again speaks positively about an industry we are all concerned about. If we can reinforce confidence by having Health Canada provide extra oversight, I see that as a positive thing, and it is what we should be looking at in the legislation. How would the legislation reinforce confidence in natural health products? If anything, I would argue, it would take away from the level of confidence.

There is a responsibility for the official opposition to be more transparent. Yes, of course there are some things Health Canada can do, just like the Canada Border Services Agency can do some things. We recognize that, but I would suggest that members opposite also need to recognize that this is a very real issue and that the opportunities within the industry can in fact be enhanced by having more oversight.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, rarely have I heard a speech showing such ignorance about an issue and a bill.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau]

It is embarrassing.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is really embarrassing. Obviously, the member has not read the natural health products regulations. The member said that Bill C-47 gives more powers, when all of that is already set out in the regulations, which are quite lengthy. I read them all so that I could introduce the amendments that I mentioned earlier.

The member clearly also did not read the Food and Drugs Act or Vanessa's Law. Had he read those pieces of legislation, he would not have given the speech that he just gave. He made sweeping generalizations about how we want to promote an irresponsible industry.

Will the member apologize for not being able to give a speech that addresses the problem? He should have remained seated rather than standing up and spouting nonsense.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

This is not a question and comment period. We have resumed debate.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is the second time that has happened to me.

I know I need to calm down, but speeches like that make no sense. I worked full-time for over two weeks with legal experts to come up with three small amendments. The member for Ponoka—Didsbury made it clear that the first amendment has been incorporated into Bill C‑224, but there were two others. These two other amendments addressed the concerns raised by some stakeholders, particularly Health Canada.

Do members know what the Auditor General's report revealed? It revealed that, since 2014, Health Canada has been unable to enforce its natural health products regulations. That is what it revealed. The Auditor General analyzed 75 of the industry's 91,000 natural health products. The Auditor General knew that these 75 products were already problematic and wanted to be able to tell Health Canada to do its job. In a panic, Health Canada decided to use an omnibus bill to introduce Bill C‑47 in an appendix. This bill purportedly championed consumer safety, but it threatened to kill an industry.

Consumers must be able to make free and informed choices, but there must be products available for them to make free and informed choices about. When we talk about natural health products, we are not talking about large multinationals. We are talking about small and medium-sized businesses.

Having cost-recovery provisions that allow the work to get done properly is not a problem. The problem is that Health Canada went for the simplest solution possible. It took the cost recovery and penalties model that it uses for pharmaceuticals and applied it to natural health products. Need I remind the House that the pharmaceutical industry has 20-year patents? The same cannot be said of the natural health products industry. Need I also remind the House that there are no taxes on pharmaceutical products, unlike natural health products? The government takes in enough money to pay for a proper oversight system.

This is what shocks me the most. I did my job, and I have kept in touch with all the groups. The industry is not at all resistant to change. What it wants is a system that allows it to survive over the long term. However, it also wants to rid its system of bad actors. The natural health products regulations were supposed to be ironclad.

We decided that we needed to go a step further. First, nicotine must be kept within the therapeutic products category. All nicotine-based products are therapies for quitting smoking. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. That is what we did with the first amendment. That was also what the government and the minister at the time wanted. We presented that.

In the second Bloc Québécois amendment, we ensured that the minister would have the power to order a recall, even though he has all the powers under the regulations. Need I remind members that recalls were voluntary? There have never been any alarming cases of people being resistant to recalls. We protected the minister's right to order recalls, which was already provided for under the regulations.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask members on the other side to please take their conversations to the lobby.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would like to ask hon. members not to have conversations while someone else is giving a speech.

The hon. member for Montcalm may continue his speech.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, when hundreds of thousands speak out through petitions, letters and social media, it is clear they want action, and when so many speak with such clarity and consistency, we owe it to them to listen.

For months and years, Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been raising the alarm about the government's heavy-handed approach to natural health products. Whether vitamins, probiotics, protein powders or herbal supplements, these are products that millions of people use safely, responsibly and by choice every single day.

I am sure every member of Parliament in this chamber has heard about this issue. I know I have. I have read letters, answered emails and had conversations at the doorstep and grocery store. People across this country are deeply worried that their freedom to make their own health care choices is being eroded, and they are right to be concerned. At its core, this debate is not just about vitamins or supplements; it is about choice, practical solutions, balance and setting rules based on evidence.

People expect policies that protect them without punishing responsible decisions. Over-regulation does not make anyone safer; it just makes life harder. Without debate, Bill C-47 was introduced with no consideration for consumers. We need proportionate, evidence-based standards that keep products safe without burying businesses in red tape. It is about respecting personal responsibility and limiting unnecessary government interference.

This is why I am proud to stand today in full support of my colleague, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, and to second his private member's bill, Bill C-224. He has shown real leadership in working with Canadians across the country to craft a thoughtful, practical response to the government's overreach.

Natural health products are not obscure or uncommon; they are a trusted part of everyday life for millions of Canadians. Seniors rely on vitamins and probiotics to maintain their energy and independence; parents give their children supplements to help support healthy growth and immune systems. Athletes and fitness enthusiasts depend on protein powders and electrolytes to train safely, and many Canadians who live with chronic conditions use natural products as part of an integrated, preventative approach to their well-being.

It does not stop there. These products are also at the heart of a thriving Canadian industry made up of small business owners, holistic practitioners, local health food stores, nutritionists and fitness professionals. These are people who pour their time, savings and passion into helping others live healthier lives. They also create jobs, keep money in our communities and strengthen the local economy, including in Cambridge and North Dumfries.

Let us not forget the ripple effect. When these businesses thrive, they support farmers, suppliers and manufacturers across Canada. They contribute to innovation in wellness and preventive care, areas that reduce strain on our public health system. Undermining them hurts not only small shops but also the Canadian economy. These are good people doing good work, and they deserve a government that treats them as partners in health, not as problems to be managed.

This is why the Liberal government's Bill C-47 was such a serious blow. Hidden deep in that omnibus legislation were new powers and new regulations that would effectively smother this industry under layers of red tape, with more bureaucracy, more fees and more Ottawa gatekeepers. It would have given Health Canada a sweeping new authority over how natural health products are manufactured, labelled and sold. This would drive small businesses into the ground and push safe, trusted products right off Canadian shelves. The result would be fewer choices for consumers, higher costs and a less competitive marketplace, all in the name of control.

Let us be honest: This was not an isolated decision. It fits a clear and troubling pattern from the government that sees it centralizing power, limiting choice and distrusting Canadians' making their own decisions. We saw it when, during the lockdown, the Liberals imposed unjustified, unscientific mandates that divided Canadians and punished people for making personal health decisions; when they forced charities and faith groups to sign on to ideological commitments, binding agreements, to access government programs that should have been open to all; and again when they tried to give themselves unchecked spending power while shutting down Parliament, leaving no mechanism for accountability or oversight. We see it today, as they continue to govern through bloated budgets and endless bureaucracies, concentrating decisions in Ottawa instead of trusting Canadians and their communities.

It is the same story every time: more power for the government, less freedom for the people. Well, Bill C-224 is about reversing that trend. It is about putting power back where it belongs: in the hands of Canadians. It is about respecting the right of individuals to make their own decisions on health and the right of small businesses to operate without being crushed by excessive regulation.

The bill would restore a sensible framework that helps keep products safe and maintains consumer protections but gets the government out of the way of ordinary Canadians, who just want to live healthy, independent lives. It is not radical; it is reasonable and practical, and Canadians know it. I have heard from hundreds of them in my community alone.

Sophie from Cambridge wrote to me recently. She said, “How can it be that natural health manufacturers and practitioners can now be destroyed for providing Canadians with vital nutrients essential for health? Our laws are now adversarial against the citizen.” She went on to say, “The severe fines in the therapeutic product provisions may be pocket change for large pharmaceutical companies, but they are excessive for natural health practitioners and natural health companies.” She is right. These are not multinational corporations with billion-dollar legal departments; they are small, family-run businesses with razor-thin margins trying to do the right thing for their customers and their communities.

One local owner of a health food store shared this with me: “These new rules from Bill C-47 are burying small shops like mine in red tape and extra fees. It's getting so expensive that we may have to pull good products off our shelves, and some businesses might not survive it. Customers will end up buying from sketchy online markets because they won't find what they need here at home. That's why we helped gather signatures for the petition and why we support Bill C-224—it brings back the old system that worked, protects small businesses, and keeps natural health products affordable and available for Canadians.”

Another neighbour from North Dumfries told me, “I use natural health products every day for my wellness, but the new rules are making them harder to access. Some of what I depend on is gone or too costly now. Bill C-224 would make sure Canadians like me can still afford the products that help us stay healthy.”

These are not isolated voices. More than 135,000 Canadians have signed the charter of health freedom petition, and tens of thousands more have submitted official House of Commons petitions.

They are just asking us to listen. They are not asking for a handout. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for the right to make their own choices, to access the products they rely on and to be treated as responsible people capable of managing their own health. This is not too much to ask. In fact, it is the least a free country should expect, yet the government continues to ignore them, to ignore the evidence and the lived experience of millions of Canadians.

It has been said that if we do not have our health, we do not have anything. That is what this debate is about. It is about whether we trust Canadians to make choices for themselves, whether we believe in empowerment or control, whether we believe in freedom or bureaucracy. I know where I stand. I stand with the Canadians, from small business owners to parents, seniors and athletes, who rely on these supplements to stay healthy and independent.

Bill C-224 is a chance for Parliament to get this right, to fix what the government broke, to restore trust and to reaffirm that the people we serve know what is best for themselves. Let us do the right thing. Together, we can support the Canadians who have spoken out, protect small businesses and defend the freedom to make personal health choices. This is not about partisanship; it is about principle. It is about whether or not we trust Canadians to make decisions for themselves.

Bill C-224 gives the House a chance to act for choice and fairness. Let us pass Bill C-224, and let us save our natural health products, protect our entrepreneurs and restore balance and practicality to Canadian health policy.

[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.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Montcalm for all the extremely important work he has done for the health and safety of consumers, as well as for the time he has dedicated to this issue over the past few Parliaments.

We all know people who work in small and medium-sized businesses in the natural health care sector. In Val‑David, in my riding, I visited the facilities of Clef des Champs, a company that has been around since 1978. The first thing the people from that organization told me was that they had imposed some criteria and that Health Canada was technically failing to do its job by not imposing the same criteria.

We hope that the bill will be amended so it can help all businesses continue their work.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle will have eight minutes and 50 seconds to continue her speech when the House resumes consideration of this bill.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 17, 2025, consideration of the motion 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.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government declared a war on natural health products, not on opioids, fentanyl or drugs. No, it declared a war on vitamins and herbal medicines. The Liberals are targeting the mother who takes a supplement for her joints because she is waiting eight months to see a specialist. They are targeting the father who takes fish oil every morning because his doctor told him to watch his heart. They are targeting the child who takes Flintstones Vitamins at breakfast to strengthen their bones.

Let us be clear about who uses natural health products in this country. These are not fringe Canadians. These are millions of ordinary people who are doing exactly what we should want them to do, taking responsibility for their own health and wellness on their own terms, but they are precisely whom this government chose to go after. The government is not going after the pharmaceutical companies that got Canadians hooked on opioids or the fentanyl traffickers who are killing Canadians. The government is going after the Canadians who are standing in the aisles of a grocery store, reading a label and making an informed decision about their health.

In 2023, very deep inside Bill C-47, an omnibus budget bill, the Liberals quietly reclassified natural health products as therapeutic products under the Food and Drugs Act. This is the same legal category as prescription drugs. Should a scoop of protein powder fall under the same regulations as insulin? Should a multivitamin be placed in the same category as Tylenol? I certainly do not think so, and neither do Canadians, so why did the Liberals bury this policy in a budget bill? They said, “Hey, we want to regulate vitamins like pharmaceuticals.” In a stand-alone bill, it never would have survived public scrutiny, so they hid it in a budget bill and hoped Canadians would not read the fine print, but they did, and now the consequences are unfolding in Canada.

People at one in five companies within the industry say regulations are forcing them to consider shutting down. At three out of four companies, they say there is a high chance they will have to pull products from shelves. At 83% of companies, nearly the entire sector, they say they have little to no capacity to absorb the cost. The irony of the decision is that, when the government over-regulates Canadian businesses out of existence, it does not stop Canadians from buying supplements. In fact, it drives them online to American companies that are not subject to Health Canada's regime at all.

Many of the natural health products being sold directly to consumers in Canada do not even have an NPN, which is the natural product number required for Canadian standards. The government's crackdown on Canadian businesses does not make Canadians safer. It actually makes them less safe, while gutting Canadian jobs in the process. This policy is clearly regulatory overreach that serves no one but the bureaucrats at Health Canada who designed it to protect their own jobs.

Let us be honest about what the Canadian health care system looks like right now. Six million Canadians do not have a family doctor. The average wait time to see a specialist is around 30 weeks. Canadians are making decisions about their health in the waiting room of a walk-in clinic because that is the only option available to them. That is the reality. Because of that reality, natural health products are the lifeline for many Canadians. This matters because a system already at the breaking point cannot afford to lose something helping to keep people out of the system. When Canadians stay healthier through prevention, they are not just helping themselves. They are helping the health care system that desperately needs relief. If the government were serious about improving the health of Canadians, it would focus on the national tragedy unfolding on our streets and in our hospitals.

The pharmaceutical industry has done incredible things for humanity. The products developed over the last century have extended and saved countless lives. When Canadians are sick, they need those products, and I am grateful that they exist, but the pharmaceutical model is fundamentally a reactive one. It is primarily designed to treat illness. That is not a criticism; it is simply what it does.

On the other hand, the natural health product model is fundamentally a preventative one. Vitamins and supplements are products Canadians use to stay healthy and prevent illness. That difference in purpose reflects a difference in how these industries operate. The pharmaceutical industry invests billions in drug development because it protects the patent. It recoups its investment over the life of that patent, and that model funds research and trials and ultimately the treatments Canadians need.

On the other hand, natural health products work differently. One cannot patent a natural vitamin. One cannot own vitamin D, for example. These are naturally occurring substances available to any company in an open market. This model drives down prices for consumers and creates a very competitive market. My point is that these are not just different products. They are fundamentally different business models, and they were never designed to operate under the same rules.

Underneath this fight over natural health products, there is something more fundamental at stake, and that is trust. Canadians came out of the pandemic with increased skepticism toward institutions and health care. They watched governments make decisions that affected them deeply, often without explanation, and sometimes without accountability.

When the Liberals quietly reclassified the natural health products that millions of Canadians use every single day, that trust eroded again. We should remind ourselves that Canadians are capable of making informed and responsible decisions about their well-being.

That brings me to the most important point of all, which is who is actually standing up to fix this. The Conservatives are. My colleague the member for Ponoka—Didsbury has once again stepped up on behalf of millions of Canadians. He has introduced Bill C-224, an act that would amend the Food and Drugs Act. As the Conservative shadow minister for health, I fully support it.

Bill C-224 would remove natural health products from the same regulatory category as pharmaceuticals and restore the made-in-Canada framework that protects both consumer safety and Canadian industry. It would ensure that Canadians could continue to access the protein powders, vitamins, probiotics and supplements they rely on every single day while protecting the competitive Canadian businesses that make them. I believe Canada should regulate a vitamin like a vitamin, not like a prescription drug.

Conservatives believe Canadians deserve access to natural health products. We believe in personal responsibility and in a government that respects the decisions Canadians make about their health. If we are serious about the long-term sustainability of Canadian health care, we must treat natural health care products as part of the solution, not as a threat to be regulated out of existence.

Every Canadian who stays healthier longer through prevention is a Canadian who places less demand on an already overburdened health care system. That is good for patients, taxpayers and Canada.

To the millions of Canadians who use natural health products, who take a supplement every morning, who read the label and simply choose to invest in their own health, I say that we see them, we hear them and we are fighting for them. The government declared a war on their vitamins, but Conservatives are fighting back to save their supplements and protect natural health products.

[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.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑224. Introduced by my Conservative colleague for Ponoka—Didsbury, this bill aims to amend the Food and Drugs Act to exclude natural health products from the definition of therapeutic products. In practical terms, if this bill passes in its current form, natural health products will no longer be subject to the same oversight mechanisms as other therapeutic products, including those set out in Vanessa's Law.

Let us briefly revisit the reason for this law. Vanessa's Law was enacted in 2014 following the tragic death of Vanessa Young. It aims to enhance the powers of the Minister of Health to better protect the public from unsafe products. For instance, Vanessa's Law allows the minister to order manufacturers to disclose information, to require a label change, to prohibit the sale of a product and, most importantly, to order a recall of products that present a serious health risk.

For a long time, natural health products were excluded from those powers. However, these products are not always harmless. Probiotics, vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies and traditional medicines are now a huge industry. In Canada, this market is estimated to be worth between $4 billion and $5 billion per year, and these products are widely used. It is estimated that that 73% of Canadians use this type of product on a regular basis. The term “natural” inspires confidence, but it must be made clear that “natural” does not mean “harmless”. “Natural” does not mean “without side effects” and does not mean “without supervision”.

These products can interact with prescription drugs, cause serious adverse reactions and, in some cases, have very serious consequences. Consider, for example, the known interactions between certain supplements and prescription drugs that can reduce the effectiveness of a treatment or increase health risks. Members might also recall the sad case of Michel Joannette, who developed hepatitis after consuming a natural product he bought online to help him lose weight. These situations remind us of a simple reality: Just because something is natural does not automatically mean it is safe.

In 2021, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development published a troubling report on Health Canada's oversight of these products. The report concluded that the department's oversight had failed to ensure their safety and effectiveness. The commissioner identified several significant problems. First, Health Canada could not order the mandatory recall of a natural health product, even in the presence of a serious health risk. Second, there were significant gaps in the inspection of manufacturing facilities. Post-market surveillance was also insufficient, and the department did not always have the necessary tools to effectively detect unlicensed products or misleading advertising.

The numbers speak for themselves. The number of reports of adverse effects associated with these products rose from 22,211 in 2010 to 96,559 in 2019. In light of these findings, the federal government decided to take action. In 2023, under Bill C-47, these products were made subject to certain provisions of Vanessa's Law. The department can now impose mandatory recalls when public safety is at stake. However, Bill C-224 would reverse that decision.

Let me be clear. We in the Bloc Québécois recognize that natural health products should not be treated exactly like prescription drugs. They belong in a distinct category. They cannot be treated as simple food products, either. In our view, the position is simple and balanced. Natural health products are not drugs, but nor are they risk-free. They must be strictly regulated. The key question, then, is this. Are we going to weaken public health protection measures?

In its current form, Bill C-224 raises a major concern. If it were passed as is, the minister could lose the ability to impose a mandatory recall when a product poses a danger to the public.

Imagine for a moment a product contaminated with bacteria such as E. coli. Without this recall power, we would be relying solely on the manufacturer's goodwill to have the product removed from shelves. It would put us back in a situation that the Auditor General himself deemed inadequate. It would be a step backwards, one that we should not take.

That said, the Bloc Québécois believes that this bill deserves serious consideration in committee. That is why we will support the bill at second reading so that it can be examined in depth. However, we will be very clear on one thing. Our final support will depend on one essential condition: The bill must maintain mandatory recall power. Public protection must never be weakened in the name of deregulation.

Quebeckers must be able to have complete confidence in what they consume. This means that what is sold on the market must meet rigorous standards, have clear labelling and make truthful claims, and the government must have the tools it needs to intervene when public health is threatened. Clear regulations protect consumers, but they also protect reputable businesses that follow the rules.

This is a simple matter, really. Just because a product is popular does not mean that it is effective or safe. The legislator's primary responsibility is still to protect public health. The Bloc Québécois will therefore keep an open mind about this bill, but there is a very clear line that we will not cross. Public safety must always come first.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a few issues over the last few years that I have heard consistently so much about, and this is not just in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk but across the entire country. Among those, the cost of living, the erosion of freedom and individual choice ranked very high at the top. The bill that we are debating today goes to the very heart of the fundamental concerns that Canadians are raising. This bill is not just about natural health care products. It is about freedom of choice. It is also about affordability and whether Canadians can still afford the basic essentials that they have always counted on every single day.

I am not sure that most members of the House have experienced a time when they have been without a doctor. I know they have experienced waking up with a potential cold, sore throat or cough and possibly considered using vitamins to fight that cold, purchasing some sort of alternative care such as vitamin C or echinacea, or even drinking medicinal tea. Those common remedies are not uncommon products. They are part of ordinary Canadian life. In fact, a strong majority of Canadians, 70%, rely on vitamins or other natural health products. They do so regularly to stay healthy during the long winter seasons. They also use them to supplement their diets. These are not luxury items.

For many of my constituents, these products are not optional. They are essential for their health and their well-being, and for the well-being of their families. That is why I am proud to speak in support today of the common-sense bill from my hon. colleague, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, Bill C-224, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding natural health care products.

Bill C-224 moves to reverse the sweeping changes that the government made in 2023 to the Food and Drugs Act, which changed how natural health products are regulated in Canada. Prior to 2023, natural health products were already regulated under the natural health products regulations, which is a robust and clear framework introduced by the previous Conservative government under former prime minister Stephen Harper. That framework provided sufficient oversight and safety, and recognized that vitamins are not pharmaceuticals.

Since the Liberals changed the requirements in 2023, natural health products must now comply with an onerous labelling regimen, additional inspections, compliance measures and mandatory recall orders, as well as additional government fees and the threat of a monetary penalty of up to $5 million per day for non-compliance. These same rules are used to regulate pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs. The question that many Canadians have written to my office to ask is, why is the government treating small Canadian vitamin-brand businesses like high-risk pharmaceutical manufacturers?

Conservatives are not against regulation. There is a place for wise and precise government regulation. Regulations are meant to protect Canadians, to reduce the risk of harm and to provide the necessary guardrails against misuse and abuse, but regulations must be proportionate. With little regulation, people obviously could get harmed, but with too much regulation, government moves from protection to control. It begins to dictate free choices, saddle businesses with red tape and distort the marketplace. As a result, innovation becomes stifled. Canadian businesses ultimately suffer, and Canadians lose choice while paying higher costs.

When products disappear, choice shrinks. When compliance costs rise, prices increase. When domestic producers exit, foreign competitors fill that gap. Unfortunately, Canadians are seeing this pattern across multiple sectors: housing, agriculture, natural resources and energy.

Government red tape has already cost Canadian businesses over $50 billion every single year. Small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, bear the heaviest burden. Ultimately, Canadians pay the price.

We must also consider this. Six million Canadians are without a family doctor. Millions more are on wait-lists for treatments and procedures. At the same time when Canadians are navigating a strained health care system, we should not be making it harder for them to responsibly manage their own well-being, yet, under this regulatory regime, that is exactly what is happening. Industry associations, small businesses, health practitioners and consumers are all raising the alarm, and 70% of brands say that they may pull their products from Canadian shelves. One in five may exit the Canadian market entirely. At a minimum, prices will rise at a time when families are already struggling. Make no mistake: Without Bill C-224, businesses will shut down or leave the Canadian market, and Canadians will lose access to products they rely on.

My office has been overwhelmed with calls, letters and petitions about this issue over the past three years. This matters deeply to Canadians. The people of Haldimand—Norfolk elected me to represent their voice, to speak the truth and to push back when government overreach threatens their autonomy. Canadians want to return to a country where choice, affordability and personal responsibility are respected by government. That is why this is not a partisan issue. The bill speaks to the fundamental values that matter to every single Canadian: freedom, autonomy and the dignity of an affordable life.

This bill is not just about natural health products; it is about freedom of choice. In the previous Parliament, we saw cross-party support for this legislation. I urge all members to once again support this common-sense bill, not only in the interest of millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products and Canadian businesses that work every single day to supply products in a safe and responsible manner to Canadians who desire those products, but also in the interest of Canadians across this country and future generations who want to live in a Canada where freedom of choice abounds, where businesses thrive and where life is affordable. The full promise of Canada deserves nothing less.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, the Liberals put forward Bill C-47, a budget bill that had buried within it provisions that attacked access to natural health products and attacked the natural health product industry. This was not stand-alone legislation. There was no consultation with the people who were affected. It was simply an effort to sneak through legislative changes attacking natural health products, buried in a budget bill.

Conservatives opposed that budget. We opposed the fiscal direction the government was taking, and as part of that, of course, we opposed the attack on natural health products. We tried to bring attention to this legislatively sneaky and substantively harmful action by the government of attacking Canadians' access to natural health products. Following that, my colleague from the Red Deer area put forward legislation to reverse the changes.

Now, in the new Parliament, there is a bill trying to restore the previous situation with respect to access to natural health products. That is now Bill C-224. I commend my colleague for this important work to restore the long-standing, well-functioning, pre-existing system for access to and regulation of natural health products and to undo the sneaky Liberal changes that were contained in their massive omnibus budget legislation.

At issue here is whether natural health products are subject to the same levels of regulation, administrative burden, etc. that are associated with pharmaceuticals. In many cases, when we are talking about natural health products, we are talking about vitamins and minerals, which people take to replace what may be deficiencies in their diets. There are certain nutrients, vitamins and minerals that we are designed as human beings to have as part of our diet, but for whatever reason, perhaps it is where we are, what we eat or aspects of what foods we have access to, some people have certain deficiencies in vitamins or minerals, which we seek to make up for through this kind of supplementation.

However, in the case especially of vitamins and minerals, we are talking about the very natural effort to restore what had historically been part of our diet as humans, to ensure that we are taking in products that are naturally required for the normal, healthy functioning of the human person. One example that gets cited often is vitamin D. We live in a cold country, if anyone had not noticed, which means that people spend relatively less time outside here, living in Canada, than they might have in other places and times, where our ancestors came from.

This means that generally we have lower levels of vitamin D, which is a vitamin we can get through exposure to the sun. In fact, I think there was a lot of good data during the COVID period identifying that there were greater risks associated with COVID for people with vitamin D deficiency. I think this was well established and well documented, and I encouraged the government at the time to share and promote this information.

Many Canadians, recognizing the importance of having the vitamins and minerals that we are supposed to have, and recognizing the risks of deficiencies, choose to supplement their diet with theses kinds of natural health products. Applying the levels of regulation that are associated with pharmaceutical interventions just does not make sense. It clearly is a miscategorization, an application of the wrong kind of regulation, and I think this is widely understood and widely appreciated.

The changes the government snuck into its omnibus budget bill did not make sense substantively and did not respect the choice of Canadians. Regardless of an individual's particular opinion about a natural health product, we have the means of accessing information about them, and individuals can and do make considered choices about this. We do not need an overly paternalistic government telling people that they must have the same regulation for vitamins and minerals as is applied to pharmaceutical products.

I am strongly in support of this bill. It aligns with choice. It recognizes the realities of the benefits of these products, benefits that many Canadians have seen and understand.

Briefly, I want to comment on a related issue, which is access to training for allied health professionals. In the course of my work as the shadow minister for employment, I have been speaking a lot with people in the field of traditional Chinese medicine who are very concerned about a change that was snuck into this year's budget bill. The government is proposing to cut off student grants to students attending private for-profit institutions, which is where the vast majority of students in Canada studying to become traditional Chinese medicine practitioners go.

We have a situation where the government is making changes, buried in a budget bill, that attack access to natural health products. Then we have a case where, again buried in a budget bill, the government is attacking access to training for those who are practising traditional Chinese medicine. This makes it very difficult for people in the Chinese community but also for people outside the Chinese community who benefit from or rely on traditional Chinese medicine to access these kinds of services.

In a free multicultural country, we want Canadians to have choice and flexibility and to be able to access the wisdom and experience of other cultures and other traditions. I think there is value in people having the choice and the flexibility to do that without the government proceeding with multiple attacks against these communities, which are always, it seems, buried in budget bills.

I commend my colleague for undoing or seeking to undo the damage the Liberals have done in terms of access to natural health products. This bill, Bill C-224, is a great bill that is trying to undo that damage. We will continue this work as we see more persistent attacks from the Liberals on this community.

Of all the problems we face in this country, it is hard to understand why it has been a priority for the Liberals to make life more difficult for people who are trying to take vitamins or trying to access acupuncture but are worried they would not be able to as a result of these changes to student grants. I would ask the government why, with all the problems in this country and all the problems in the world, it chose this attack on responsible, law-abiding citizens who simply are trying to exercise choice and trying to be healthy. That is a question that maybe we will hear an answer from the government on at some point.

I look forward to hearing from my colleague, the sponsor of this bill. It is a great bill. I look forward to supporting it and supporting the people in my riding and across the country who rely on natural health products to maintain and manage their health.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will invite the hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury for his five-minute right of reply.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request that the motion be carried unanimously.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent so that we can return to Government Orders.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.