Health Committee on Oct. 10th, 2024

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much.

Congratulations on getting a unanimous vote in the House, Mr. MacGregor, to bring it here to the health committee.

I have two questions for you.

First off, as you see the bill moving forward, what are your concerns? What are you thinking about? What keeps you up at night?

Second, do you have any final messages to the health committee before we consider the bill?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much for that question, Mr. Julian.

I'd probably say I have two concerns.

I know this bill is in the committee's hands, but when this committee goes through clause-by-clause analysis of this bill, please understand that this bill was crafted very carefully and in consultation with a lot of people. I truly hope the committee honours the spirit and the intent of all the items listed in this strategy. They have had a tremendous amount of support.

Please know that the brain injury community is watching. They are, for the first time in a long time, filled with some hope, because an issue that is so personally important to them is finally getting the attention it deserves.

Second, I have a concern, as do many members of Parliament who have private members' bills in the mix right now, with the standoff we have in the House of Commons. I hope we can find some way to break that logjam, because there are good Conservative, Liberal, Bloc Québécois and NDP private members' bills. I think a lot of Canadians would like to see the business of the House continue so that those bills can get their due.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat your final question? Was it just about a final message?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

What is your message to the committee?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'll end with this, committee members.

You must have a lot of patience in this business, in politics. I think that's exemplified by my own personal example. This idea first came across my desk all the way back in 2018. It started with a simple conversation with a constituent. Through the weeks, months and years of collaboration and work, we've arrived at where we are today.

My message to you is just this: Know that a lot of people are watching this work right now. I know through Brain Injury Canada's campaign and through the many people involved in this with personal lived experience—you've all received the emails from right across the country—this is a deeply personal and important issue. I would urge the committee to really keep that in mind as you undertake your important work.

I'd like to thank you. You've afforded me and everyone who cares about this issue a lot of grace. I appreciate everyone's incredible support of the bill as it has progressed to this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We have about four or five minutes left before we suspend for the next panel, so we're going to do two short rounds: two minutes for the Conservatives and two minutes for the Liberals.

Go ahead, Mr. Doherty .

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that.

I want to thank Mr. MacGregor and Ms. McDonald for bringing this bill forward.

My uncle suffered a traumatic brain injury in the eighties. I saw first-hand how a national-level athlete was turned into somebody who struggled not only with brain injury but also addiction. We know that right outside the G.F. Strong rehab centre in Vancouver, dealers prey on those who struggle with brain injuries. We have to do more for this, so I want to say thank you for bringing this forward.

I also want to thank Ms. McDonald for her testimony regarding intimate partner violence. Through an organization, I met two ladies last week in my riding, and I was shocked to learn that their brain injuries came from intimate partner violence. What they're living with is horrific. What you brought forward is critically important.

Further, regarding the work I do with mental health, we know post-traumatic stress disorder can come from traumatic brain injuries. That is not necessarily a knock, or what have you; it's what somebody experiences as well.

I would offer you this, Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps when we're revisiting my own bill, Bill C-211, which passed in 2018.... It's the national framework on post-traumatic stress disorder as it pertains to those who serve our country and our community, such as first responders. Is there a way we can tie this together? I'm not sure if it's through another amendment, but take a look at the brain injury component side of it.

With that, I'll turn it over.

I think the only question I would like to ask Mr. MacGregor is this: I know through the bills I've done that once you've written it and it goes through the processes, there are a lot of things that come up that you didn't consider at the first writing. Is there anything you would advise this committee, should you get...? Are there any amendments you would like to see added to it, so we can get this through drafting, or what have you, and get it done?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Be as succinct as possible, please.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I think one thing that would help me in answering you, Mr. Doherty—and thank you for your words—is looking at the difference between the first version of this bill in the 43rd Parliament—Bill C-323—and what you have before you today. There is an incredible difference. I'm not sure if I have any amendments to suggest, because we did an incredible amount of amending of my first version. I'm very proud of what I have before me.

Of course, it is your job as committee members to take all the evidence before you and make some decisions. I appreciate your dedication to this cause, so thank you.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

The last two minutes go to Dr. Powlowski.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm going to pull a Doherty here and ask a very long question, then give you two seconds to answer.

You're NDP and from B.C. There have been much-publicized statements by the B.C. government about mandatory treatment under the Mental Health Act. I spoke to one psychiatrist specifically about this in B.C., who said, “No, this is a subset of the population.”

This is how it pertains to the bill: It's a subset of the population that has brain injury, mental illness and substance abuse—concurrent disorders. They would be using the B.C. Adult Guardianship Act to require that people get treatment or that their treatment be monitored.

Alistair, you did a great job on this bill.

Do you know anything about what B.C. is doing on this? If you don't, maybe your colleague Mr. Julian can get someone from B.C. to talk more about this and its applicability to brain injury cases.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'm sorry. I don't have direct knowledge.

All I can speak about, Dr. Powlowski, are the provisions contained in this bill.

What's important to remember is that this is a federal piece of legislation. It spells out very clearly that there's going to be an expectation of collaboration between the federal minister of health and his or her provincial counterparts. I know there's a lot of provincial jurisdiction we always have to be concerned about, especially when we're dealing with health policy. However, I still believe this federal bill works in a collaborative measure and respects provincial jurisdiction.

I'm trying to treat this issue with the national urgency I think it deserves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you to you both, and thank you for being with us.

This concludes the verbal testimony that we are going to hear on this bill. The next stage for us will be clause-by-clause consideration, which will happen on October 24. Members will be aware that there's a 48-hour cut-off for any proposed amendments, so get your amendments in by October 22 at noon.

Thank you so much to Brain Injury Canada and to the sponsor of the bill, Mr. MacGregor, for being with us today. We're going to suspend while we get ready for the next panel, and—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, because of the unanimous nature of the bill being referred to our committee, would there be an appetite from committee members to adopt it by unanimous consent without amendment on division?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

No, I don't think so.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

There are two problems: raising a motion on a point of order and the fact that there is no consent. No, we're out of luck.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call the meeting back to order.

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

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

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

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

You have the floor, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

We'll begin rounds of questions with Dr. Ellis. You have six minutes.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Calkins. Obviously, you came very well prepared. That is the testimony that I think we heard back during the original debate around Bill C-47. We heard that exact testimony.

I hope that all members of the committee have had the opportunity to read this report by Deloitte. It's a telltale report, of course, underlining very clearly that they were unable to find any deaths due to natural health products. In my reading of it, there were perhaps 32 hospitalizations in three years due to natural health products, so their safety record, as you outlined very clearly, Mr. Calkins, is quite excellent.

That said, one thing that we all receive as members of Parliament is a considerable amount of correspondence from Canadians. Maybe you could talk a bit about that.

The other important part, I think, is related to how many female entrepreneurs are actually in the natural health product industry and how important that is to their success as individuals.

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

The Deloitte report, I think, debunks many of the claims that were made.

Look, natural health products are proven to be safe and effective. You don't have to go very far to find somebody who's concerned about this. As I said, 80% of Canadians rely on and use natural health products. Colleagues, every one of us received, I would imagine, countless numbers of cards from the various industry associations, urging and encouraging us to do our job, which is actually to serve their interests and not serve the interests of a bureaucracy that, frankly, should and does have the resources it needs. It's just a matter of the government making it a priority and finding out whether or not they're effectively managed within their own department to keep this industry well regulated and moving forward.

Mr. Ellis, you're hard-pressed to find anybody.... I've been a member of Parliament for 19 years. I can count on zero fingers how many letters I got from people saying that we need more protection from natural health products. However, I can tell you that it's going to take a whole lot of fingers to count the number of Canadians who are very concerned right now about this new regulatory regime that's coming in—the self-care framework that Health Canada wants to implement—which directly opposes all of the advice that Parliaments were given, including the report from back in 1998 that natural health products are more closely aligned with and should be treated like food, not as therapeutic drugs.

I just leave that with the committee: Do what the Canadians who wrote to you have asked you to do and support the bill.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Calkins.

If I could direct back to the number of female entrepreneurs....