Health Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Absolutely.

As health minister, the safety of Canadians is my number one concern, as I know it is for every member here. We have a duty of care to ensure that anything that is ingested or used by Canadians is safe and is not going to make them sick. This bill would jeopardize that.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

There's a narrative building out there that in the the absence of Vanessa's Law, somehow Health Canada already has some powers, like stop-sale powers, that would allow for that. We heard that from Mr. Calkins, the sponsor of the bill, repeatedly. Can you walk us through how that power does not work and how Vanessa's Law—which this particular PMB guts—helps ensure safety for Canadians?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Let me give you a specific example of where it could have been used. In 2019, Health Canada received a consumer complaint about an adverse reaction leading to hospitalization after taking an unlicensed kratom product. Health Canada requested that the firm stop the sale of the product. That's the power we had at the time: to say that it had to stop selling this product.

The problem is that we have no power to pull it from the shelves, so it just sits there on the shelf, dangerously contaminated. That leaves us to beg and plead for the individual to take it off the shelf, to chase down the places where it might be and to ask them, pretty please, to take it off the shelves. Nowhere else exists where we would allow that kind of thing to happen.

What Vanessa's Law does, then, is make sure of two very important things. First, with regard to that plant I was talking about that was contaminated with animal feces and urine, we can recall those products, so that nobody is using those products that are contaminated, and we can also empower the courts—not us—to be able to determine, in a judicial process, what is an appropriate fine for the negligence and to ensure that there is a penalty associated with that negligence.

Now, the last point—and this is an extremely important point—is that if you are compliant or trying to be compliant, this never gets triggered. For a company that's a good actor, the cost of Vanessa's Law is exactly zero dollars. In fact, I would argue that undermining the made-in-Canada brand by creating a circumstance where there is uncertainty about whether or not products on the shelves are safe makes Canadian products worth less and puts Canadian companies at risk in terms of their global brand recognition.

When you talk to a company.... I'm sorry to pick on Jamieson; I was there recently. Jamieson is an amazing company. When they sell around the world, they will tell you that the Canadian, made-in-Canada and Health Canada-regulated brand is worth so much to them as they export around the world. We have to protect that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a bit surprised by the minister's tone and openness on this issue, since we're discussing Bill C-368 because the government included these obligations in its mammoth Bill C-47. I sincerely believe that he covered it up during his discussions with the industry to try to make it possible to distinguish natural health products from products offered under the pharmaceutical model. I'm not going to pursue this because I only have six minutes, but that's the basic argument.

Forgive me, Mr. Minister, but your attitude and comments have been quite contemptuous towards committee members. If I were a member of the pharmaceutical industry, I wouldn't be too happy. You're using fairly specific arguments so that the industry looks poorly organized.

According to Health Canada, 350 natural health products have been recalled in five years. Again, according to Health Canada, 31 public health advisories have been issued as a result of these recalls. When we issue such opinions, it's because we consider the problem to be really dangerous.

What was the reaction and collaboration of the businesses concerned following those 31 public health advisories?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you for the question.

I'm angry because—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I don't want to know if you're angry, I want you to answer my question.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I'll answer it, but I think I'm entitled to the same amount of time as you to answer it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Your question lasted more than a minute, Mr. Thériault.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you very much.

First, yes, I am angry because Bill C-368 threatens the health of everyone in this country. This is a ridiculous bill to be debating. There's a lot of misinformation. The reason I'm here today is to make it clear that this bill is a threat to our health care system.

Second, there is a difference between the bill we are currently studying and the need to protect the possibility of removing products containing contaminants. Yes, the bill raises other concerns, such as the possibility of improving the way natural products are managed. However, that's another matter, which isn't the one under consideration today.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Minister, you want the right to recall products. Then I'll give it to you. I'm going to move an amendment to the bill. Once this amendment gives you your right to recall, will the bill be as despicable in your eyes?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I'm genuinely open to all types of amendments that address the concerns I've mentioned.

For example, if it's possible to remove products that threaten the health of people and to propose amendments that protect the health of people across the country, then I'm very open to that. That's a whole other conversation. I'm very open to that as a result of our conversation.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Minister, I'm announcing that I'll be introducing this amendment. I do think that natural health products have nothing to do with Vanessa's Law. So this will allow you to continue your conversations to find the points of convergence between the industry and the desire, which it shares by the way, to clean up the less good products, if you want to put it that way. It's in our interest to get this cleanup right.

Having said that, I have another question for you. Nicotine products are the source of major objections to the bill. If I put forward an amendment stating that nicotine products aren't covered by the bill, does that meet your public health objectives? I think nicotine is a drug, and I consider it a hard drug in terms of addiction. Therefore, it shouldn't be considered a natural health product.

Would that make the bill more palatable to you?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

In the first order, I think I've talked clearly about the things that really worry me about this bill. I spoke very forcefully about that because I need it to be heard. This is a real danger.

In the second order, on conversations around the management of things like nicotine replacement therapies, which don't have tobacco, using an act that's really for tobacco and vaping.... I'm willing to have that conversation. I understand your objective, but I would ask, what about the precision regulatory ability to go after pseudoephedrine, which is a precursor to methamphetamine? We need to have the ability writ large to act in an agile way to an ever-evolving environment. Unfortunately, in the manufacturing of illicit drugs, for example, a lot of things that can seem very innocuous can suddenly be used in very dangerous ways. Maintaining that precision regulatory power is something that is very important to protect the country, but I would say to your other point.... Every conversation you and I have had, Luc, has been centred in very reasonable positions.

I apologize for speaking in English, but things like “pseudoephedrine” and “precursors to methamphetamine” are not words I'd say well in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Monsieur Thériault.

Thank you, Minister.

Next is Mr. Julian, please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We all understand that the natural health products industry is an important industry and that so many Canadians—millions of Canadians—depend on natural health products. I count myself among them, so I have some questions about the bill.

However, before I come to that, I couldn't resist, given Dr. Ellis's line of questioning, asking you to dispel a couple of myths that have been passed around the health committee table. The first is that the dental care program the NDP pushed for and successfully worked on doesn't exist. The second is that pharmacare has no future.

My questions for you are simply these. First of all, how many Canadians have benefited from the Canadian dental care program to date, in the first 24 weeks of the program? Second, how many provinces have indicated an interest in signing up to the pharmacare program, which will cover diabetes medication and devices—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have a point of order from Mr. Doherty.

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

You have to be kidding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.

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

I'm not kidding.

Respectfully, Mr. Chair, what's the relevance to this? Next, you're going to have the minister talking about Canadians gargling with gasoline, which we know is a complete falsehood. At least Dr. Ellis had relevance in his line of questioning, comparing pharmaceuticals to natural health products.

Far be it from the NDP to want to cover all the bases and keep whatever semblance of a coalition they have with their friends there, but, Mr. Chair, I ask you.... I won't be as blunt as my colleague. Please, there has to be some relevance to the topic we're talking about here. If our friend from the NDP wants to wax on and on and use his time to ask these types of questions, there has to be some relevance.

Mr. Naqvi spoke eloquently about relevance, so we're doing the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Sauce for the goose comes to mind.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

No, this is a procedural point of order, Minister, and I'm going to rule on this. We're going to move on, and you'll be able to provide evidence.

Mr. Naqvi was right. Mr. Doherty was right. It didn't change the fact that there was a line of questioning that wasn't related to the bill earlier in the day. There is a large discretion when it comes to relevance in any parliamentary proceeding.

This is the first question coming from Mr. Julian. I trust that he will either tie it into the bill or dispense with this and move on. I'm going to give the floor back to Mr. Julian, just so that we see where he's going before doing anything more drastic. It is normal to afford some latitude before intervening.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

On another matter, Mr. Chair, there was an assertion that a lie occurred—