Health Committee on Oct. 10th, 2024

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor] just having a conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I agree.

The question lasted 30 seconds, and you have 30 seconds to answer it, Mr. Calkins.

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

I'm sorry. Well, I'll do my best.

Look, the reality is that more people die from prescription medications and actually from food than from natural health products, according to the data that I've been able to glean from the public sphere, so, Mr. Naqvi, to suggest that natural health products are actually problematic.....

There is not enough data or research, and Health Canada, I don't think, has been forthright with that information. As I've listed, it has massive powers already to stop sale and to issue fines and levies for non-compliance wherever it deems fit, and those existed prior to Bill C-47.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Let me also get this on the record: Your bill doesn't address the topic of cost recovery or labelling changes, yet you consistently point to those issues. The only thing your bill does is take away government's ability to protect Canadians from products that could cause serious risk to human health. Do you think you are misleading Canadians about what your bill will actually accomplish?

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

Mr. Naqvi, the ability for Health Canada to—

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

No, answer my question. What will your bill accomplish?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Naqvi, please. He's trying to answer your question, and he—

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

Health Canada has had the ability, prior to the passing of Bill C-47, to mandate a label change. It can revoke the site licence of anybody who refuses to put that label change on. That applies to manufacturers, packagers, labellers and importers. Those powers existed prior to Bill C-47, so whoever told you that Bill C-47 has given Health Canada those powers has not been genuine with you, Mr. Naqvi.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

That's your time, Mr. Naqvi.

Mr. Thériault for two and a half minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

For the benefit of those listening, I'll explain why we're discussing this issue.

The government wasn't doing its job. It didn't carry out inspections or share existing standards with the industry. There were a few problems, even if, compared to the pharmaceutical industry, there were far fewer related to adverse reactions. All of a sudden, we're told that the situation absolutely needs to be fixed and give the impression that there are controls in place. But there are no controls.

You said the industry was extremely rigorous. If the minister requests a product recall, it won't be a problem if the industry is rigorous. It's the same for food recalls. In the absence of a recall mechanism, there must be inspections and companies need to be provided with the standards to ensure they can act accordingly. But Health Canada has been complacent for years.

I see people taking offence on the other side of the table. I think we need to find common ground on this bill. I'm prepared to give the minister the power to issue recalls. We do it for food, so why shouldn't we do it for this? Even so, he needs to be able to put a real inspection process in place, and not blame the industry for problems related to the safety of certain products, when for years there has been complacency. The industry is self-regulating, and that's why we need to tone down the rhetoric when we say that this industry can be harmful to people's health.

That's the point I wanted to make. I'll give you the floor if you wish to comment.

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

I would encourage you to explore the site licensing regulatory process, because my understanding from touring various manufacturing facilities as I've learned immensely about this wonderful industry is that the industry itself actually helped Health Canada develop the regulations for what needs to happen in order for a site to be properly set up for safety.

My understanding now is that Health Canada doesn't provide the guidelines back to the very companies to know how they can follow and be in compliance with the Health Canada regulations. I would really encourage you.... My understanding from the industry and the people I've talked to is that they've been more than helpful in trying to help Health Canada come up with best practices and give it guidance and advice on how the industry could be regulated and on how sites should be set up, operated and run. The reward coming back is that Health Canada now wants more powers and wants to take a lot of money away from these companies under the self-care, self-funding framework.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Julian, you have two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I've been listening very carefully to your testimony, Mr. Calkins. There were a number of cases, rare cases, of products that were harmful to people. In your testimony, what you are saying to us today is that there are a number of alternatives that exist already for Health Canada. What I understand you're saying is that you can issue a stop sale order, and there are fines and the possibility of revoking a licence. You are basically saying that there are a number of other measures that can be taken by Health Canada now in the rare case of something that is harmful to the Canadian public. Is that...?

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

I'm happy to revisit the list with you, but this is my understanding and interpretation of what Health Canada already has the powers to do.

I talked with industry actors, and Health Canada already has the ability to issue a stop sale order: Anybody who doesn't comply with a stop sale will automatically be non-compliant and subject to the fines prior to Bill C-47. Health Canada has the power at the border to stop the importation of any personal use import.

I don't want to advertise this, but, as you know, anybody can order products from around the world through Amazon or whatever the case might be. Health Canada has the ability, if it wants, to restrict products coming across the border that don't have the same rigorous standards that the Canadian regulated products already have; to seize any product at any time that it wants from any of the sites or stores; to revoke a site licence for a manufacturer, a packager, a labeller or an importer if they're engaging in some practice that's inappropriate and is causing harm or potential risk to Canadians; to mandate a label change, add warnings or do whatever it needs to do to get the label to come into compliance with the rubric for labelling requirements; to go to any manufacturer, packager or importer and inspect that site, and the site must comply; to inspect any product that they want; to either buy it off the shelf and send it to the lab; and to go into the site itself and collect whatever it needs to.

Furthermore, Mr. Julian, everyone I witnessed in the manufacturing side of the equation usually has access to labs or even their own in-house labs to make sure that what's in the product is what's on the label. Health Canada approves every natural product number for sale, which means it also has the power to revoke any natural product numbers. Health Canada already has broad, sweeping powers.

The Auditor General's report said that the issue isn't that Health Canada doesn't have the powers but that Health Canada wasn't appropriately using the powers that it already has.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

We have about five minutes. We're going to divide it evenly between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Next up, for two and a half minutes, is Ms. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your leadership on this bill, Mr. Calkins.

As members of Parliament, we often receive notes, letters, emails and correspondence. I was actually surprised by the amount of correspondence I received so quickly—initially on the change to the legislation, and then very quickly on your legislation—and by the number of people who actually stopped me in the community to tell me that this is such a serious problem and that they have very serious concerns about it.

I've been on this committee for nearly three years; I have never seen the gallery full, and here we have a full gallery. I'm assuming these people aren't just sitting here at 5:30 because they want to. I'm assuming they're here because they're trying to show some support.

My question to you is this: Why is it so important for Canadians to have choice in natural health products?

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

Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge, for that question.

Canadians who rely on natural health products—and there are many—don't have to go very far. Go to any health food store or natural product store and you will find Canadians buying these products to supplement their health. As I said, over 80% of the consumers are women trying to look after their own health or their family's health. The ability for them to have choice and to put some semblance of health care into their own hands is a wonderful thing.

In terms of benefits, the government brings up a few of these rare cases in which something's gone wrong. Has anybody done an analysis of what would happen if 70% of the products disappeared from the shelf? Has anybody even asked that question? How less healthy will Canadians be if one in five businesses goes out of business, for example? The industry will tell you about the fear that is out there. Canadians are rightly afraid they're going to lose the ability to make those health care choices on their own.

The irony of all this, Mrs. Goodridge, is that in the name of safety, the government is going to extend so deep into this that they will drive businesses to the United States. There are states right now that are incentivizing Canadian businesses here, which are regulated with natural product numbers from Health Canada, and are offering to take them to the United States, where they don't have the same regulatory framework. Then Canadians are going to buy those same products. The jobs and investment are going there. The lack of regulations in the United States compared with Canada is going to be what they get. They'll be trying to buy that same product. They'll ship it in across the border and make Canadians more exposed to risk, with less control over the products they're putting in their bodies.

This is not the approach to take for health. You don't bring in this kind of law and regulatory oversight to drive the business away over a couple of cases. The effect will be opposite to what the government claims it will be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

The final questions for you will be posed by Dr. Powlowski for the next two and a half minutes.

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

Blaine, it is very good to see you, though I vehemently disagree with you.

You said, one, that natural health products are basically safe. Two, you said that even with this law, there are adequate protections in place, but you've admitted that if we enact your law, we will lose the power to have mandatory recalls. We would also lose the power to require reporting of adverse drug reactions, which is Vanessa's Law. I think, in total, that this bill would reduce protection for Canadians.

Now, although many of these products may be safe, as one surgeon friend of mine used to say, “What can happen does happen and will happen. If you haven't seen something, you haven't seen enough.”

I've certainly worked in developing countries, where I've seen a lot of people die from traditional medicines—kids, unfortunately. You'll say, “That may be so in Africa, but that's not Canada.” However, in North America, we had ephedra alkaloids between 1997 and 1998. They were used for weight loss. They caused hypertension, myocardial infarction, strokes and seizures. They caused 10 deaths and 13 permanent disabilities. The plant alkaloid pyrrolizidine causes liver toxicities, including cirrhosis. There was kratom, a natural health product used for opioid withdrawal, causing seizures and psychosis. We've already talked about heavy metal poisoning from Ayurvedic medicines. In many case reports, including in Canada, St. John's wort had adverse interactions with commonly used drugs like Imitrex and Maxalt, which are used in migraines. It can cause serotonin syndrome, which can be deadly.

These are not necessarily benign products. A lot of natural products have been the sources of medications, like aspirin and artemisinin, which is used for the treatment of malaria. A lot of these are drugs, and you're proposing they be less regulated. I can see how the Conservatives are perhaps more interested in supporting the businesses that produce natural health products than they are in preventing unwanted adverse effects in Canadians. I'm a little surprised the NDP feels the same way.

Blaine, I'll give you an opportunity to respond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Powlowski.

I find it very rich that a government that legalizes crack, meth and heroin wants at the same time to crack down on vitamin D and St. John's wort. Some 40,000 Canadians have died so far from opioid drug overdoses. You know, if you want to improve the health and well-being of Canadians, maybe you should look at spending a little more time and effort there, instead of worrying about a few hundred cases, over three years, of people who might have had an adverse reaction to a natural health product.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Thank you to all of you for a very interesting meeting.

This is the first of a few meetings on this bill, Mr. Calkins, as you know. After the constituency week, we will be hearing from some others.

I have one housekeeping matter before we adjourn, colleagues, regarding the U.S. delegation that asked to informally meet with us. We have been able to secure resources to meet with them for one hour on October 22 between 3:30 p.m. and 4:40 p.m. You'll be formally notified of that. For whoever can make it, it would be nice to have a decent turnout.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We're adjourned.