Health Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Just because we're not resuming the debate on tabling documents with the committee within 30 days—by which time we'll have finished studying the bill and it will probably have been passed—doesn't mean they shouldn't be tabled all the same. I want them tabled. We can ask the organization to table them without our having to debate them.

I hope everyone will agree that we should make this request. The study will be completed, but we can refer to these documents afterwards. It could be interesting for the future.

So I'm asking for unanimous consent for us to express this desire. In fact, it's something that's already been done and didn't require a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Thériault, I think you went a little further than a point of clarification. You proposed a motion and asked for unanimous consent. I'd ask you to do it again when you have the floor, after Ms. Goodridge.

Mr. Julian, would you like to raise a point of order or would you like us to add your name to the list?

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

I would like my name to be added to the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mrs. Goodridge, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is one interesting piece. We get lots of correspondence and we've asked for lots of facts on this. We've had lots of information shared by Health Canada officials and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada, and I found it really interesting when we got a letter back very quickly from the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada in both official languages. It went into our HESA email. It stated that they would happily provide the data, but only within two weeks and only after we made a decision.

I asked specifically in the meeting if they would provide the information, and they said yes. They have now decided that they're only going to provide this information if we actually vote on it, which I think is fairly telling, in that they're setting the timeline as to how long they will give us. They're also dictating which information they would give us. It's not that parliamentarians get to decide which information we will receive; they have set out what they will actually allow.

There is one other concern I have. When we had the Minister of Health here, he spoke about all the different adverse impacts. He talked at length about feces and a variety of issues. He made it sound as though perhaps this entire industry had some very serious issues when it came to feces.

In doing some further clarifications, we asked for information as to the number of these incidents. Eventually, we found out there were three. We asked for this information to be tabled with the committee.

Health Canada tabled the information with the committee, but it only tabled information with regard to one feces case. We still don't know about the other two cases. We still don't have that information. This is another example of not having the information that we have requested and that we need as a committee in order to move forward.

It's very frustrating that this Liberal government is trying to destroy a $13-billion industry. They have all these safety concerns that they have brought up, but when push comes to shove and we ask for the data, they cherry-pick which data they will actually provide to us. Canadian small business owners, primarily female small business owners, are going to be the ones suffering the consequences of the fact that we as parliamentarians don't have the right information.

I don't understand. This wasn't that difficult. We didn't ask for that much information from Health Canada, but we didn't get two-thirds of what we asked for. For three incidents, it should not be that difficult.

Health Canada officials said there were 282 observations regarding unsanitary conditions. They didn't give any details in regard to what those looked like. They didn't give any of the details. They literally gave us sentences that had data sprinkled in, and not actual information.

I'm raising this issue because this isn't the quality of information I would expect to have at the committee.

The letter that came from Ms. Hoffman from the Institute on Safety of Medication Practices is not okay. That's not what we should be getting from a witness, saying, “Here's the information we will provide to you.” The last time I checked, Parliament had some pretty wide, sweeping rules saying that we can ask witnesses for a variety of information. If you're going to come here and share information with us, you should be willing to actually share all of the information with us, should we request it. You don't get to tell us which information you will and won't share. That's not how parliamentary privilege works.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The point I want to make is that just because I voted earlier against resuming debate on the motion to obtain additional documents does not necessarily mean that I voted against the principle of the motion. However, I don't think we need to have this debate, and I don't think we need this information to do our job today. Let me explain why.

First, I'd like to point out that we've tabled three amendments in relation to Bill C‑368. I may not have enough parliamentary experience, but in nine years, I've never worked as hard as I did on these three amendments. We had to study Bill C‑368, Bill C‑47, Vanessa's Law and the Food and Drugs Act. We also had to study another piece of legislation—the elephant in the room no one is talking about—the Natural Health Products Regulations, which are linked to Bill C‑368, our amendments and all the laws I've just mentioned. These regulations are a key element in their own right, and are already designed to protect consumers. I've looked into this. It's the centrepiece.

If we were to write a new regulation on natural health products or a new law on food and drugs, I would agree with the proposal that we wait 30 days in order to have time to receive the requested documents. However, this is not the case.

I will now share my preliminary remarks.

It is important to understand the concerns of the public, that is, those of the organizations whose representatives have come to testify before us, and the concerns of the minister in relation to Bill C‑368. I'll summarize the six main concerns.

First, we were told that nicotine products are extremely dangerous and that the provisions of Vanessa's Law should therefore be maintained, as well as the ministerial order issued in August. The latter concerned additional rules for nicotine replacement therapies. We will be proposing an amendment to this effect.

Secondly, we were told that the minister must retain his right to order a recall.

Third, we were told that the minister must have the ability to require changes to labels and packaging.

Fourth, we were told that poisoning from natural health products is dangerous. We agree that all intoxication is dangerous. We are aware of this.

Fifth, we've been told that we need the capacity to carry out inspections and post-marketing monitoring. We are aware of this, and there are already provisions for this in the Natural Health Products Regulations.

Sixth, with regard to new products, such as the new drugs mentioned by the minister, we were told that, if Bill C‑368 were passed, there would be a problem in relation to precursor chemicals.

I will now address these six concerns.

With regard to the first concern, we do indeed find it important to maintain in law the existing provisions concerning nicotine-based products. That's why we'll be proposing an amendment to keep the provisions affecting these products in Vanessa's Law and in the government's emergency order.

As for the second, we'll be proposing amendment BQ‑2 to retain the minister's right to order a recall when there are risks of serious harm to health, as well as his right to impose coercive measures in the event of serious risks to the environment.

As for the third, I would emphasize the following. Where there is a risk of harm to health, the minister can already impose a label change without going through the provisions of Vanessa's Law. He can simply apply the Natural Health Products Regulations. Indeed, under sections 16 and 17 of the Natural Health Products Regulations, found on page 13, Health Canada can require a company to modify its labelling, including the addition of new warnings. According to section 16, the minister may do so if he or she has “reasonable grounds to believe that a natural health product may no longer be safe when used under the recommended conditions of use.”

In fact, Health Canada recently used this same power to require companies to add a warning to products containing chasteberry. Companies had the option of adding the warning to the label, discontinuing the sale of the product, or presenting evidence that the warning was unnecessary. The minister already has this power under the regulations, and does not need to go through the provisions of Vanessa's Law.

The fourth concern is that poisoning from natural health products is dangerous. This is indeed the case. However, the provisions of Vanessa's Law do not necessarily come into play here.

It's about two things. The first is to ensure enforcement of the Natural Health Products Regulations. Health Canada must verify the recommended dosage indications and enforce other labelling requirements. This is its duty, Mr. Chair. This power was not acquired as a result of Vanessa's Law. Health Canada already has this power. In fact, that's what the Auditor General mentioned in one of her reports, which gave rise to Bill C‑47.

The second thing is that Health Canada really must do its duty. This organization absolutely must provide health information to help Canadians and Quebeckers make informed decisions. It must launch an awareness campaign on the dangers of natural health products and their interactions with other natural health products or medications. It must also stress the importance of adhering to the recommended dosage, as has been done with regard to the same risk of harm posed by medications. Health Canada has conducted successful medication awareness campaigns. That's Health Canada's role. It's their job to do it, but they're not doing it. Health Canada representatives admitted as much to the committee.

This authority, to conduct such awareness campaigns, does not derive from Vanessa's Law. It's Health Canada's job. The problem is that, for years, Health Canada has not adequately or sufficiently fulfilled its monitoring duties, even though the Natural Health Products Regulations legitimately entitle it to do so. Health Canada is not fulfilling its duties, and this is what the Auditor General denounced in her report.

I now turn to the fifth concern, which is that we must have the capacity to carry out inspections and post-market monitoring of products. Post-market monitoring is not included in Vanessa's Law. However, it is provided for in the Natural Health Products Regulations, notably in section 17(1), page 13. Section 16, page 13, deals with pre-marketing requirements. Subsection 17(1) deals with post-marketing requirements. It states in particular:

17(1) The minister may direct the licensee, manufacturer, importer and distributor to stop their sale of a natural health product if (a) the licensee does not, within the required period, provide the minister with the information and documents requested under section 16;

In other words, he has failed to provide the information requested by the minister.

(b) the information and documents provided by the licensee in accordance with section 16 do not demonstrate that the natural health product is safe when used under the recommended conditions of use;

(c) in the case of a natural health product that is imported, the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the natural health product is not manufactured, packaged, labelled, imported, distributed or stored in accordance with the requirements set out in part 3 or in accordance with requirements that are equivalent to those set out in part 3;

Part 3, which begins on page 24 of the regulations, defines good manufacturing and inspection practices.

I'm almost done, Mr. Chair.

(d) in the case of a natural health product that is not imported, the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the natural health product is not manufactured, packaged, labelled, distributed or stored in accordance with the requirements set out in part 3; or

(e) the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the natural health product is not packaged or labelled in accordance with the requirements set out in part 5.

Part 5 of the regulations, entitled “General”, begins on page 48 of the regulations, and includes requirements related to labelling and packaging.

What about the new hazardous products, such as drug precursors, mentioned by the minister?

I've already answered that in committee, but I want to say it again here, since we have the health of citizens at heart. Precursors are provided for in subsection 7.1(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This subsection provides as follows:

7.1(1) No person shall possess, produce, sell, import or transport anything intending that it will be used: (a) to produce a controlled substance [...]

Offences and penalties are already provided for in cases of violation of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Precursor Control Regulations, and these precursors are set out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

In addition, drug precursors, also known as “precursor chemicals” or simply “precursors”, are substances used to manufacture illicit drugs.

Most precursors also have legitimate commercial uses, and are used within the law in a variety of industrial processes related to consumer products, such as medicines, flavours and fragrances. We can therefore add drug precursors to the prohibited precursors.

Mr. Chair, I hope I have made the case that we cannot make amendments to Bill C‑368.

What exactly does this bill do? It simply says that natural health products cannot be left in the legislative environment of Vanessa's Law. We have to get them out of there.

We need to make the necessary amendments to the Natural Health Products Regulations. This fully addresses consumers' concerns, insofar as recalls will no longer be strictly voluntary, but mandatory. The minister will absolutely have the power to do this, and it won't be done at the will of the company.

The amendments we will soon be studying will ensure that we are well equipped to continue our study of the bill. We have the necessary documents at our disposal to do the work we have to do this afternoon. I'll also be able to explain the rationale behind these amendments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Julian, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to go back to the suggestion made earlier about the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada.

Later, I'm going to make a motion, and I hope it will be passed by unanimous consent. I don't want to filibuster. Nor did I want to do so last Tuesday, when witnesses were participating in our meeting. However, I think it's important to have this information.

Moreover, as the Standing Committee on Health, we have to be able to get this kind of information. It's important. We have a responsibility in this regard.

My introduction to this bill is to start by thanking Mr. Calkins, whom I often have differences with, but who has done Canadians a real service by presenting this bill, which we voted for at second reading to bring to committee.

I hope I don't embarrass him by saying this, but it was one of the strongest presentations I've seen by a member of Parliament defending his or her bill before this committee. I thought he was very well prepared and very effective in answering the questions.

We take the bill very seriously. We will be going into clause-by-clause study shortly. I believe the roll of witnesses who appeared did a very effective job of presenting the importance of the bill and some areas where it could be improved. It is always our responsibility as legislators to take a good bill and make it better.

In this case, we're talking about an industry that has so much importance across the country and helps and provides for the health of Canadians. As I mentioned—Mr. Calkins has as well—we're consumers of natural health products. They are a way of getting us into better health. It is important that we take this bill very seriously. I know all members have done so.

I have been reviewing the transcripts and the witnesses, and it is very clear to me that the industry has the highest possible standards and does an effective job of meeting its obligations to Canadians, but I'm also aware that there are some bad apples. We've seen a handful of cases of companies that haven't reacted effectively to voluntary recalls.

There are two amendments I'll be offering today for the committee to consider. One is to retain the ability to have mandatory recall in those rare cases. It's an extremely effective industry with high safety standards, and the best way to maintain that is to ensure that the occasional bad apple can be dealt with appropriately.

We also need to address the issue of penalties that are incredibly high and absolutely disjointed and irresponsible, given the importance of the natural health product sector and the fact that many of them are small businesses.

Those are the amendments I will be offering today when we get to clause-by-clause consideration.

I note that we've already lost the first hour of our committee, so we have only a little over 45 minutes left. I hope we can get to clause-by-clause consideration. We don't have a lot of amendments, but I'm sure our witnesses will receive a lot of questions.

I want to thank Mr. Calkins for bringing this bill forward and doing it in such an effective way. The bill will pass, either today or when we consider it, but not without some improvements. There is no doubt that the leadership he has shown on this bill will mean that ultimately the bill will be adopted by this committee. I certainly hope that is the case.

I'm going to raise, as I mentioned earlier, the following motion for unanimous consent. I hope we adopt it, rather than spending any more time on a filibuster.

I move:

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 Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

I'm sorry, Chair.

Could you read that again, please, Mr. Julian?

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

[Inaudible—Editor] two weeks in the letter.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion I read has “within 30 days.” Again, it reads:

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.

That was his motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion as presented by Mr. Julian?

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I have a friendly amendment to change “30 days” to “two weeks”. I think that would be acceptable to the Conservatives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Dr. Powlowski.

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

I'm not sure how this differs from the original motion that we just voted down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The difference is.... The committee can do anything it wants by unanimous consent. As long as everybody agrees.... It's a non-debatable, unanimous consent motion. That's where we are.

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

If I still have the floor, I think this doesn't address the concern that they had, which was in disclosing confidential information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm sorry. It's not debatable. It's a yes or a no.

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

Okay, then the answer is no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Do we have unanimous consent to change the last two words of the motion, or the timeline on the motion, from 30 days to two weeks?

We do. Okay.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll just reread it.

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 two weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay, you've heard the motion. Is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion as presented?

(Motion agreed to)

(On clause 1)

There is one amendment to clause.... No, I'm sorry. The first amendment to clause 1 is—

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

Sean, I had my hand up previously on—