Health Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 140 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to an order of reference adopted by the House of Commons on Wednesday, May 29, 2024, the committee is commencing its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-368, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding natural health products.

I would like to welcome our witnesses, who are available to us as experts for any questions members might have that are related to the legislation.

From the Department of Health, we have David K. Lee, chief regulatory officer, health products and food branch, and Kim Godard, director general, health product compliance directorate. From the office of the legislative counsel, we have Alexie Labelle and Jean-François Pagé for any procedural questions.

I'd like to provide members with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-368.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and the subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I think that we adjourned debate last time on a very important motion related to this bill. It specifically respects the data that has been egregiously reported here in this committee without any evidence.

Certainly as we begin to look at that, I think that we need to return to the original omnibus bill in which the changes originally occurred, transforming natural health products to therapeutic products. This was done, as I said, in an omnibus bill, in an attempt to hide that from the public.

That being said, when we heard from witnesses from Health Canada and specifically from Dr. Supriya Sharma, we know, once again, that data was referred to that has never been substantiated. The sad fact of the matter is that in the obfuscation of witnesses who were here at this time, they absolutely refused to provide that data. In spite of many disagreements we've had at this committee, we have had the ability to have documents tabled here, which has been a regular occurrence, thankfully, and it's something that we've agreed to. Sadly, that couldn't occur at this time.

Subsequently, I moved a motion for ISMP to provide the dates of occurrences, the specific substances that were in question, the outcomes, etc. It's interesting; I had the opportunity to review the footage from that meeting, and when I asked representatives from that group three times to come forward and provide data to substantiate their claims, each time they talked about privacy and they talked about.... It was very unclear what their point was.

My point, though, is very clear. If you want to come and make claims about a $13-billion industry that is mainly composed of small and medium-sized businesses here in Canada—a business that is incredibly important, often a family business and often run by women—then you need to substantiate your claims. It is absolutely egregious that this was not taken into account by our Liberal and NDP counterparts, who adjourned debate on this motion at the last meeting.

On behalf of those entrepreneurs who really want to be able to continue to ply their business in our country, shame on the Liberals and shame on the NDP for adjourning debate. We could have settled this already, but once again, for reasons unknown to me....

Perhaps it is the return of the marriage of the NDP and Liberal leaders. Despite the much-touted public tearing up of the agreement, clearly everybody knows that the renewal of vows has reoccurred. As we begin to look at that—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have a point of order from Mr. Julian.

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

I'm certainly questioning relevance, because Dr. Ellis is off on a tangent, but I'm also a little bit perplexed, because this is really important legislation. I'm glad that Mr. Calkins is here with us today, and we have important amendments to consider on the bill. Perhaps Dr. Ellis can share with us why he's filibustering this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Ellis is talking about things that were relevant to the bill, and I expect that at some point he's going to introduce a motion to resume debate or move a brand new motion along the same lines. That's what I'm waiting for. He's on a topic that will lead to that. We'll see where it goes.

Do you have a point of order as well, Mr. Thériault?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I understand that Mr. Ellis is making a kind of preamble as to the work we're going to do. I would agree with the idea of allowing each of the parties to make a preamble or an opening statement before beginning the clause-by-clause study.

I'd also like to make a preamble. We've heard a lot of things, and before explaining the amendments I'm going to propose, I'd like to specify the framework in which they were made. I think this is important.

If the members of the committee agree, we could determine a speaking time for this preliminary statement. For my part, I don't need more than two and a half minutes.

Mr. Ellis could perhaps conclude his preamble, eventually.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I have a document that outlines the process we're going to follow.

If someone raises their hand, I'm obliged to recognize them. If they want to raise a relevant issue that affects the study, they have the right to do so.

Mr. Ellis is asserting his right as we speak.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'd like my name to be put immediately on the list of people who want to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right.

The next person to speak is Ms. Goodridge, and then it will be your turn.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Ellis, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

In spite of efforts to silence this very important topic of data production in the face of egregious and unsubstantiated claims directed towards the natural health product community, I think it is important to set the stage for folks who are out there listening.

I want to bring people back to the fact that I know that every member of this committee, including Dr. Powlowski, Dr. Hanley...perhaps not Mr. Naqvi, because he wasn't there. I know Ms. Sidhu has been here throughout this entire disgraceful episode.

We have received more correspondence on this particular issue with respect to natural health products than any other issue that has ever come before the health committee in the three years that I've been here.

I know that we've brought stacks upon stacks of people to committee who were reaching out and saying, “Do not take away my access to natural health products.” Once again, what we have heard from witnesses who have appeared here.... I'll refer back to the original omnibus bill when officials from Health Canada said here very clearly, “You can search the database for yourself.”

Chair, that is why this is particularly important. When we asked them where the numbers came up and what the particular adverse effects were, they said, “You can search the database for yourself.” We asked if they would table the actual adverse effects in writing with the committee, and the answer we got back was the exact same, which is disgraceful.

That is exactly why I think it is important to have this motion acted upon and the data brought forward on behalf of families and entrepreneurs who have natural health products and businesses for natural health products, which is a $13-billion business in Canada.

When we asked Health Canada officials that question, they said, “Go look at the database yourself.” When we asked them to table that with the committee, the exact same answer came up, which was, “Go and look at the database yourself.”

I don't know how many people around the table here tried to look at the database. We spent hours attempting to look at that database, which we should never have to do, to substantiate the claim of Health Canada with respect to natural health products.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Excuse me, Dr. Ellis; I'm sorry.

Somebody has a cellphone that's close to the microphone and is vibrating, and we just got an indication that it's probably not good for the interpreters.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis. I'm sorry for the interruption.

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

No, that's okay.

Again, we spent hours of our own time, in our own office, looking at this database and trying to substantiate the ridiculous claims of the Health Canada officials. Because of the nature of the database, it is impossible to do that. This was the first reason we are moving a motion to compel purporters of claims to actually table that information. That's why it's so important and why that motion was very specific in what it asked for.

The second instance we had—I know I mentioned this before, but I think it's important to put this all in one package—was of Dr. Supriya Sharma being here at the same time as the original omnibus bill. She claimed that a child died, sadly, in Alberta as a result of natural health products. It pains me to bring this up again, but it's such an egregious and untrue claim that it bears repeating. The child died, if I'm not mistaken, of viral meningitis. For a physician to be here as a representative of the government, working with Health Canada, and say that the child died due to natural health products when it is absolutely untrue is shameful, I think. I was going to call it a lie, but I'm not going to. I'm just going to say that it's absolutely untrue. It's absolutely shameful.

Then we came back because our great friend, who happens to be here at the table today, realized the classification of natural health products as therapeutic products is what allows this cascade of ridiculous events, meaning that therapeutic products will be required to have significant labelling changes with tiny fonts, increased use of plastics and labels that are going to fall off because they're so huge. As well, the cost recovery program can also be enacted, very much contrary to comments from Minister Holland, who said the change in definition wouldn't change all those things. However, it is the change in definition that allows all those things to happen.

We also heard, of course, representatives from the anti-smoking and anti-nicotine group who came here. They suggested that nicotine should not be part of the natural health products regime. They wanted to specifically fight the bill based on that. When you begin to look at that.... You know, there are easy ways to make things happen in terms of removing products that contain nicotine from the natural health product legislation.

The other group that was here, as I mentioned already, was ISMP. They mentioned there had been 700 claims of side effects related to natural health products since 2019. They were again very unclear in what they presented. One of the claims, if I remember correctly—again, I looked at the footage—was that somebody read the label wrong, got the wrong product and was upset because they couldn't get a refund.

Now, I don't think that is a side effect of natural health products. That's a side effect of not reading properly. That's my own opinion. All the way to their egregious claims of multiple deaths....

Again, why is this important? It is important because people should not be able to come here and make egregious claims without data to support what they are saying. We even had a physician from SickKids here saying that multiple children died because of natural health products but who, once again, refused to provide any cases. I asked that physician specifically, “How many children died, what did they die from and what was the toxic substance?”, etc., and there was no answer provided.

It is a comedy of events. They're not even errors, and it's certainly not funny that people come here and make egregious claims against the natural health product industry and nobody besides the Conservatives and the Bloc wants to hold them to account. The NDP-Liberal coalition wants to adjourn debate on this specific motion. Clearly, they do not want to have this information before committee.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

There's a point of order from Mr. Julian.

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

Again, Mr. Chair, I want to cite relevance and repetition.

I'm kind of flabbergasted. This is a bill the NDP supports, and Mr. Calkins presented it. We have important amendments to consider. It's being filibustered by the Conservative health critic. I don't understand, at all, the objective. He is repeating himself, and he's not relevant to the debate.

I ask you, Mr. Chair, whether he has actually moved a motion or is just speaking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

He hasn't moved a motion. He is just speaking, but he is speaking to the bill. It's hard to say that it's not relevant.

I'm sorry, Mr. Julian.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I think this is worthwhile pointing out. I know it's painful to Mr. Julian, but the sad part is that Mr. Julian was the.... We knew that the Liberals were going to vote against this because, of course, they moved the original bill to gut the natural health product industry.

I think it's shameful for Mr. Julian to have been the one to adjourn debate on bringing forward data that is specifically related to this bill and to the natural health product industry, of which he claims he's a huge supporter.

That's not to mention the fact that one of the amendments he has brought forward is basically a wrecking amendment toward Bill C-368. As we begin to consider his amendment, I think we'll find that we'll ask you, Chair, to rule against the admissibility of his ridiculous amendment as we go forward.

With that, I think it's incredibly important that we resume debate with respect to the data that we requested at the last meeting related to the natural health product industry because it provides important context for Canadians to understand that, by and large, this industry is safe, effective and proudly Canadian.

If the NDP-Liberals are allowed to have their way, they will wreck the industry, drive businesses out of Canada and force Canadians to purchase products online, which will never be tested up to Canadian standards because there's no law requiring that. They'll be able to access products from any jurisdiction they wish.

We have an opportunity specifically to ensure an industry.... We've heard multiple testimonies related to the safety and the interest of those involved in the industry of how safe it is. They're willing and open to have changes. We've talked to them, and they're willing and open to have changes with respect to removing products that contain nicotine from the category of natural health products. We also know that the concept of recall.... I know that our colleague from the Bloc has submitted an amendment specifically with respect to recall that we certainly would support, which makes perfect sense.

We heard clearly from inside the industry that moving amendments related to those two things would make perfect sense.

Very specifically, Chair, with those things in mind, I move that we resume debate on the motion I proposed at the last committee meeting, which was adjourned by the NDP and the Liberals, to demand that ISMP bring forward data that they cited at that last meeting with respect to natural health products.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The motion to resume debate is a dilatory motion that is not debatable, so we will go straight to a vote.

Just for clarity, the motion that Dr. Ellis moved at the last meeting, which is the subject of the motion to resume, reads as follows:

That the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada provide the list of 700 incident adverse reactions, the date of incident, product and outcome to the standing committee on health within 30 days.

The question for the committee is, shall the debate on that motion resume?

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

Chair, I'd like to request a recorded division, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

At the time the motion was moved, I had Mrs. Goodridge and Mr. Thériault on the speakers list.

Do you still wish to have the floor, or was it on that?

We'll go to Mrs. Goodridge and then to Mr. Thériault, please.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to clarify one thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.