Health Committee on Oct. 10th, 2024

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

Yes, with regard to those female entrepreneurs, 54,000 Canadians work directly in the industry, but there has been no gender-based analysis on this. Over 80% of the consumers of natural health products are women, 90% of practitioners in the industry are women, well over 50% of the micro-businesses are female-owned and 84% of direct sellers are women.

Here's the part that's particularly obnoxious about the way this has all happened: Bill C-47 and Bill C-69 give the Minister of Health the power to make direct orders. When the minister has the ability to make a direct order, they don't have to go through the gazetting process. When you don't go through the gazetting process, you actually don't have to do the gender-based analysis the government set up when it came into office in 2015, so no gender-based analysis was done on this particular issue of changing natural health products under the rubric of Vanessa's Law, and I think that's particularly galling, since this government claims to be a feminist government. It's going to disproportionately affect women—women-owned businesses, women consumers, mothers who want to look after the health of their families and their children. People who are looking after their own health should have choices and options available to them.

The community's frustrated, Mr. Ellis.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Calkins.

It's interesting to look at some of the research. These are perhaps older statistics, but 3,300 seniors died due to prescription pharmaceuticals, and millions are hospitalized and harmed every year. If we look at those numbers in comparison to natural health products, we see, as I mentioned, that 32 people from all walks of life and all age ranges may have been harmed due to natural health products in three years, which, if we want to do the math, means there are about 10 a year, as opposed to at least 3,300 seniors who died due to pharmaceuticals.

Do you think it means, then, that the government should make an attack on the pharmaceutical industry and make the restrictions there more stringent? Is its approach misguided?

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

I find it odd that we want to do to natural health products the same type of regulatory approval process that the therapeutic drug process undergoes right now, which has resulted directly in the deaths of over 3,000 seniors every year in Canada.

As I said in my opening remarks, natural health products should be closely aligned with food. If you talk to the industry associations and everyday Canadians who use these products, they will tell you the same thing.

Mr. Ellis, there's no reason for this to happen. Nothing that Parliament's ever done, such as parliamentary reports, has suggested that they do this. Fifteen years after a previous government fell into the same trap, this government is doing the same thing all over again. The problem is that this time there's no course correction other than through my private member's bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins and Dr. Ellis.

Next is Dr. Hanley, please, for six minutes.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thanks very much, Mr Calkins, for appearing today. I salute your accomplishment in getting this bill to committee. I'm hoping we can use this committee to really talk about what this bill does and does not do.

I'm thinking of a case report I read in the Canadian Medical Association Journal last year, describing a 39-year-old woman presenting with severe anemia, abdominal pain and a cluster of other symptoms. She was found to have lead poisoning from taking an Ayurvedic medication. The article says that of 15 types of pills seized at the practitioner's clinic where these medications were obtained, there were high levels of arsenic, mercury or lead in 14 of the samples. Also, three pills contained prescription medications, including diclofenac, dexamethasone, progesterone, norgestrel and cetirizine.

I have to say that when I read cases like this, I'm greatly concerned by this bill and its intent and the correspondence, conversations and briefs that I've received, not so much from industry but from health and health care experts. Statistically, Health Canada received reports of over 8,000 suspected harmful reactions to natural health products, 5,000 of which were serious, from 2004 until 2021. Between 2021 and 2023, out of 1,019 reports of harmful reactions, 772 were serious enough that those Canadians had life-threatening reactions and/or were hospitalized.

You may call it overreach, but I would call it proper oversight and protecting Canadians, which I think is one of the key roles of Health Canada and of government.

Additionally, I think it's important for anyone observing to note that this bill does not have any influence on some of the concerns that I have been hearing about natural health products, such as the proposed policies from Health Canada on cost recovery or improved labelling requirements. That has been a primary point of contention and focus of stakeholder scrutiny through campaigns.

I want to reflect that if passed, this bill would roll back the ability for Health Canada to subject natural health products to recalls. Also, I want to point out that many of your colleagues, or at least some, realized that natural health products lacked the regulatory protection of recalls that other products such as food and pharmaceuticals have, according to testimony such as this from Mr. Lawrence. Do you not find this disturbing? Are there any products out there right now that are supposed to be recalled and are not?

Another point of testimony from Mr. Patzer is about how we make sure that Canadians can be confident in the products they're buying when there are so many holes, gaps or issues, including knowing whether they are contaminated products or expired products or even knowing where these products are manufactured or where they're coming from.

Your stance contradicts that of others within your party, although perhaps this is another example of a somewhat whimsical policy according to which way political winds are blowing.

I also want to point out that at the government operations committee, Shawn Buckley of the Natural Health Products Protection Association testified, “I am familiar with the bill; I wrote the first draft for MP Blaine Calkins.”

It sounds like, with this bill, you're the spokesperson for the natural health products industry. Would that be accurate, Mr. Calkins?

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

No, it wouldn't be accurate at all, Mr. Hanley.

Mr. Buckley has his own opinions about things. I had a bill drafted by the legislative drafters here. I asked Mr. Buckley if he would send me what he thought the bill should be. When he sent me his bill, it looked virtually identical to what the legislative drafters here at the House of Commons presented to me.

To suggest that I work for Mr. Buckley would be not only wrong.... As a matter of fact, the first contact I had with Mr. Buckley was when I asked him to send me what he thought the bill should be. That's when I compared. He has experience as a legislative drafter previously in his career, but I believe you'll have plenty of time to cross-examine Mr. Buckley.

Look, Health Canada already has more powers than its ability to recall. The industry is asked many times to have product recalls. I'm not aware of anybody in the industry having refused a voluntary recall, but let's review the powers that Health Canada had before Bill C-47.

They had the ability to stop a sale. That would stop the problem with the Ayurvedic medicine that you're talking about. They have border power for personal-use imports, where they have the ability to seize any product that they want. They can revoke a site licence for any of the sites that would have had Ayurvedic medicine that was being sent out. That includes manufacturers, packages and labels, and importers. They can mandate a label change any time they want and add any warnings they want to products. They can inspect any site licence. They can inspect any product. They approved every natural product number that's out there, and they can revoke a natural product number and cancel the product.

If it's not being done—

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Calkins, I only have a minute left, so I'll—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Hanley, you asked a very lengthy question.

You have another 45 seconds, Mr. Calkins.

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

The mandatory recall, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Hanley, is a red herring. The existing protocols are already in place. The real question you should be asking your minister is why the staff in his ministry aren't actually using the powers they have to bring non-compliance into compliance.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

In my last 30 seconds, I want to point out the concerns of many who have written to me or who have written briefs to this committee.

This is from the Canadian Medical Association, from Dr. Joss Reimer, whom I actually just met with yesterday.

Canadians should be able to make decisions about their health care, including having access to natural health products that are safe and live up to any claims they make regarding health benefits.

She goes on to say:

...which is why we recommend leaving [natural health products] under the definition of therapeutic products. The alternative is far too risky.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Give a brief answer, if you could, please, Mr. Calkins.

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

Look, the international association says that Canada, prior to Bill C-47, was the gold standard that the rest of the world should be achieving. Why would anybody at this table want to undermine that, Mr. Hanley?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Mr. Thériault for six minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Calkins. I also thank you for introducing this bill.

I've been here for nine years, and I think I'm known for my honesty and intellectual integrity. I wanted to tell you that, when we studied the issue and called in people from the industry, including the Chief Science Advisor of Canada, Mr. Davies agreed wholeheartedly with our very harsh criticism of the government's plan to apply the pharmaceutical model to natural health products. I say this because, at the outset, you said the Liberals and the NDP had voted in favour of Bill C‑47. By the way, I'm not saying that for the benefit of the colleague sitting next to me.

When you introduce a private member's bill, you have to try to get everyone on board. When it comes to Bill C‑47, it's unfortunate that provisions such as this have been hidden in an omnibus bill. Governments often do that. You've been in Parliament for 19 years, and I'm sure you've seen the Conservatives do that too.

I'm also saying that because people on this side of the table offered constructive criticism. They had pretty much the same opinion of that attempt to apply the pharmaceutical model to natural health products, which the Chief Science Officer of Canada failed to prove was relevant.

That said, I have a concern. I hope that you're open to the idea of amendments, because I don't believe that nicotine is a natural health product. It's a serious drug. I wonder, then, whether you are open to the idea of excluding all nicotine-based products from the bill.

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

Thank you, Mr. Thériault, for your question.

My preference would be for the bill to pass as expeditiously as possible, unamended. I can't speak for the organizations that represent the industry, but I would think that if you had a conversation with them—the Health Food Association, the Natural Health Products Protection Association, and so on—you would hear them say that nicotine is not part of their concern.

What appears to have happened is that because nicotine comes from a natural source and because the claim is that it is a smoking cessation product, it falls into the natural health—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That's true of opium and cocaine as well.

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I understand then that you aren't open to such an amendment.

That's one of the arguments being made by opponents of your bill. We're going—

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

I'm not excited about an amendment, but it's up to you guys to decide if it gets amended. I'm just stating my preference.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Understood.

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You have 45 seconds remaining.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

All right.

Mr. Calkins, what is your understanding in relation to recalls?

When we want a bill to achieve consensus and be adopted, we seek ways to get everyone onboard and we identify what we can agree on.

I think people in the industry are very concerned about and protective of the quality of the products they put on the market. I doubt they have any concerns about the issue of recalls, should a problem with their products be reported.

In that regard, I think we should be open to the possibility of ensuring that recalls aren't just voluntary. In any case, the industry has no problem when it comes to voluntary recalls.

Since my time is up, I'll stop there. I'll come back to that later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Next is Mr. Julian for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I congratulate you, Mr. Calkins. You have a long experience in the House; it's almost 20 years, I believe. The fact that you've brought the bill this far is an exception in terms of private members' bills. You're obviously responding to a very clear need. There is no doubt that the issue of natural health products bears much closer examination. That is why I and the NDP voted for the bill to get to committee so that we can do this more extensive examination.

You didn't mention in your introduction—but I think it's fair enough to reference—that this is the third time since we've been in the House of Commons that we've had bills that have an impact, or a potential impact, on natural health products. I'm referencing, of course, Bill C-51. That was brought forward by the Harper government. It was, in the end, not adopted. Then there was Bill C-17, Vanessa's Law. Those were both under the Harper government. We now have the most recent legislation that's been brought forward.

In your preface to your initial statement, I think your very eloquent reference to the importance of the industry and the importance of natural health products was absolutely valid. We've been going around in circles on this issue. The industry obviously needs some assurance that what will be put into place will benefit the industry and will benefit consumers. I count myself as one of the consumers of natural health products. In fact, I take magnesium because my doctor prescribed it; it makes a difference on the long hauls that we take, which I will be taking shortly to go back to B.C. This is important.

We've had a number of different iterations of the bills. How do we get the balance right to ensure that we are actually benefiting the industry and making sure that consumers have access to important natural health products, while also making sure that there is some oversight?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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