Health Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting 135 of the House of the Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 29, 2024, the committee will resume its study of Bill C-368, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'm sorry for interrupting you, but the sound is very bad. I don't see anyone in the booth. Where is the interpreter?

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

If you get the other earpieces, then they can hear better.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Have tests been done with the interpreters?

I'll try another earpiece.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay. To answer your question, we don't have any online participants, so we didn't do the usual sound tests.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I've put in a new earpiece, and the sound seems better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.

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

Welcome to our panel of witnesses. Joining us today for the first hour we have the Honourable Mark Holland, Minister of Health. We also welcome the officials accompanying him today from the Department of Health: Dr. Supriya Sharma, chief medical adviser; and Linsey Hollett, assistant deputy minister, regulatory, operations and enforcement branch. Thank you all for being with us here today.

Minister Holland, this is familiar territory for you. You have five minutes for your opening statement, and you now have the floor.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be back at this committee and to talk about this bill.

Let me say, on the first order, that natural health products are an extremely important part of the choices Canadians have as they make choices about their health and the products they wish to consume, but, as with all other products, it is essential that we make sure they're safe. We can recall a tube of lipstick or a head of lettuce, but this bill would gut our ability to recall natural health products.

Folks, this is a cuckoo bananas bill, with all due respect. Let me just give you an example. The U.S. FDA detected the presence of filth, including animal feces, coloured fibres, white paint chips, white material, plastic-adhering products—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Minister, just hold on a second.

Mr. Doherty has a point of order.

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

I'm just going to ask whether the minister can turn down his volume a little. It is awfully loud for those of us who use the earpiece quite frequently. I can't imagine how loud it is for the interpreters, so can he just be a little less loud into the mic?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Minister.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you.

Todd, like me, you have a good outdoor voice. I'll push the microphone away. I appreciate the note.

Can I rewind the tape a little bit? Let me go back, if I could. I'm going to hit the timer here.

The U.S. FDA indicated to Health Canada the presence of filth, including animal feces, coloured fibres, paint chips and a plastic-adhering product in a gummy dietary supplement produced in Canada. Health Canada did a report, an investigation, and found rodent droppings and urine.

Let's be really clear about what this bill would do. This bill would mean that if a product contains rodent droppings and urine, we have no ability to pull it from the shelves. Folks, if you want feces-contaminated natural health products sitting on shelves, with Health Canada having no ability to pull them, then this bill is for you. If you don't want your natural health products contaminated with things like fibreglass, paint chips, feces or urine, then I would suggest that giving Health Canada the ability to pull those products is essential.

I've heard the committee say things like, “Well, you could do a stop-sale.” Absolutely, but a stop-sale doesn't allow us to pull them from the shelves. The idea that we can pull lipstick off the shelf but not a natural health product is a bananas notion.

The other thing that has been brought up is fines: “Oh, my goodness, there are going to be $5-million fines.” It's not Health Canada that imposes these fines. It is the courts. Right now, the maximum fine is $5,000 dollars. Do you want to say to a plant like the one I've just described here, with rodent droppings, urine and paint chips, that their maximum fine from the court is $5,000? The strangest part is that this is coming from a party that purports to be all about law and order. This is about giving the courts, not Health Canada, the tools they need to impose proper fines.

I just want to go over some of the things that are found, like mould and lead. In the example of lead, we have somebody who was hospitalized with lead poisoning. Can you imagine leaving that on the shelves and not having the ability to pull it off? People talk about vitamins. Let's talk about how in February 2021 a product with high levels of undisclosed vitamin D resulted in a teenager being hospitalized for 10 days and how, after we find that, this bill would take away our ability to take that off the shelf. Folks, that makes no sense.

The other thing this bill does is deal with precision regulatory powers, so that we can be nimble. I know this committee has been talking about nicotine replacement therapy, and I'm glad the committee agrees that we should have the ability to protect our youth in that way, but what about pseudoephedrine? It's a precursor to making meth. We need to have the ability to protect human health.

Let's talk about what this bill does and doesn't do. This bill isn't about labelling. This bill isn't about cost recovery. It has nothing to do with that. I'm happy to come back to this committee and have conversations on that topic. Those are good and important conversations that I want to have, but this bill has nothing to do with that.

What this bill has to do with is killing Vanessa's Law. Vanessa's Law only comes into effect when there is a serious human health concern that is present.

I have been disappointed that there has been reference to a Deloitte study that was commissioned by industry and only looked at vitamins and minerals, and only in hospitals, but the Auditor General's report was ignored. The Auditor General is talking about how serious this is. The Auditor General's report is ignored, but an industry study in a very limited way, done by Deloitte and paid for by industry, is suddenly what we're listening to.

In terms of consultations, since 2016, there have been 4,500 consumer and health care consultations. In 2019 alone, 70 different companies met. I'll end on this point, Mr. Chair. I met with companies like Jamieson, fantastic Canadian companies that are doing incredible things, that are hiring Canadians and where “made in Canada” means something. The cost to people who comply or try to comply is zero dollars.

When it says “made in Canada” and you sell that around the world, it means something. It means that product is safe. It means it doesn't have feces in it. It means it doesn't have lead in it. It means it doesn't have undisclosed amounts of something in it that could make you sick.

If we can recall a tube of toothpaste, a lipstick or a lettuce, why in God's name would we not be able to recall a natural health product?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll now have rounds of questions from members, starting with the Conservatives for six minutes.

Dr. Ellis.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Minister, we've been down this road before with you. Let's start with some simple questions. You like to use some very emotionally charged language.

How many Canadians don't have a family doctor? Just give us the number.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

According to the most recent report that was just released by CIHI, it depends on the province, but Ontario, say, is at 88%—

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

Just the number—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

—and the lowest province is at about 79%. The territories are lower, particularly Nunavut—

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

Minister, I'm going to interrupt you because, again, you and I have gone down this road many times.

You said you read the report. I'll say it perhaps more slowly and clearly for you: How many Canadians—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Across the country, it's known to be about 82% who have a—

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

Excuse me, Minister.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Okay.

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

Don't interrupt me. This is not your time for questions. You'll have lots of time when you're in opposition to ask questions if you so desire, or if you're able to keep your seat.

That being said, how many Canadians don't have access to primary care in Canada? Just give us the number.