Health Committee on Oct. 5th, 2026

[Roberta Kramchynsky]

Based on my understanding of the bill, if it were to pass and that type of scenario happened, they wouldn't have the access to, let's say, Vanessa's Law powers or the precision regulating authorities under the Food and Drugs Act. They would still be subject to the natural health product regulations, but in that case, there would be a different set of tools available to the minister.

If it did get to a point at which a recall needed to be made, and that power was not available to the minister when it is available for other low-risk products or other products that we're very familiar with, such as foods, other medicines and things of that nature, I think where there's a risk to the population there's an expectation from consumers that they would be protected.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you.

In regard to access to information, Vanessa's Law also gives the minister powers to obtain information where necessary to determine whether a therapeutic product presents a serious risk. This is important, because Health Canada may need information from a manufacturer to properly assess an emerging safety concern.

If Health Canada receives reports suggesting an NHP may cause serious adverse effects but the available information is incomplete, what authority would the departments have under Bill C-224 to compel the manufacturer to provide the information necessary to assess that potential risk?

[Roberta Kramchynsky]

In that scenario, if Bill C-224 were to pass, I believe the department would be reliant on its existing powers under the natural health product regulations.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you.

Would you agree that where there is a serious and imminent public health risk, it is preferable for the health regulator to have a clear statutory power tailored to that risk rather than to have to rely on voluntary compliance or potentially uncertain court remedies?

[Roberta Kramchynsky]

Yes. I do believe that would actually be an ideal scenario. I do believe that for companies that are aiming to be compliant, it would be a very rare scenario. I actually have a hard time contemplating when that might be, particularly from the manufacturers that I work with day to day. They're seeking to become compliant. That would be an ultimate last resort type of power to be exercised.

If there were a true case of a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of Canadians, I think there would also be an expectation from the public that Health Canada can act in those scenarios.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts specifically found that the previous $5,000 maximum fine was too low to serve as an effective deterrent. Can you explain why an appropriate penalty is important for addressing deliberate or repeated non-compliance and how the current framework ensures that businesses making good-faith efforts to comply are treated differently from those deliberately selling unauthorized natural health products?

[Roberta Kramchynsky]

When you're looking at fines and the different penalties associated with this, I believe they do act as that deterrent. One thing I'd like to highlight to this committee is that within the definition of therapeutic product, it does include a wide variety of products. It includes drugs, biologics and medical devices.

Perhaps I can use medical devices as an example. That includes a wide variety of products that have levels of risk associated with them, including what we call “level one” products, such as manual toothbrushes or cotton swabs. In this scenario, where we're talking about removing natural health products from the definition of therapeutic products, it means that there is power there for the minister to recall a cotton swab if there was a risk to the public, but they would not be able to do the same for a natural health product.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much. The time is up.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their time today.

I will briefly suspend the meeting. Then we will welcome the second panel of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

Those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor audio, English or French.

Members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. Members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding.

Now I would like to welcome the witnesses joining us for the second hour.

From the Canadian Pharmacists Association, we have Ms. Ashley McVey, vice-president of public affairs; and Dr. Sadaf Faisal, chief pharmacist officer.

Welcome.

From Morphus, we have Madam Andrea Donsky.

Welcome to the committee.

From the Traditional Chinese Medicine Association of Canada, we have, online, the founder and president, Mr. Pierre Chen.

Welcome to the committee.

Each organization has five minutes for opening remarks. Then we will proceed with a round of questions.

We will start with Ms. McVey for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Ashley McVey, Vice President, Public Affairs, Canadian Pharmacists Association]

I'm splitting my time with my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You have five minutes between the two of you.

[Dr. Sadaf Faisal, Chief Pharmacist Officer, Canadian Pharmacists Association]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting the Canadian Pharmacists Association to contribute to your study of Bill C-224.

I am Dr. Sadaf Faisal, chief pharmacist officer at the CPhA. I'm joined by Ashley McVey, our vice-president of public affairs.

The CPhA is the national voice of pharmacy and represents more than 40,000 pharmacists across Canada. Our perspective on Bill C-224 is grounded in patient safety and the critical role pharmacists play in helping Canadians assess the risks, benefits and evidence related to the natural health products they use.

The CPhA recommends that the committee not proceed with Bill C-224 in its current form, as it would exclude most natural health products from the definition of “therapeutic product”.

Natural health products are widely used by Canadians. As a pharmacist with more than 20 years of experience, I have counselled many patients on their effectiveness, appropriate use, potential side effects, and interactions with prescription and non-prescription medications. Patients often consult pharmacists before starting a supplement, vitamin, herbal product or other natural health product. Through these conversations, pharmacists routinely identify potential safety concerns that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Canadians may assume that products available on pharmacy shelves are safe and risk-free. However, “natural” does not always mean harmless. While many natural health products are considered low risk, patients frequently use them alongside prescription and non-prescription medications, creating the potential for interactions, side effects or therapeutic duplications. Older adults, individuals with multiple chronic conditions, pregnant individuals, and patients taking several medications may be particularly vulnerable.

Pharmacists help patients understand these risks and make informed decisions about whether a product is appropriate and how it fits with overall care. From a medication safety perspective, even a relatively low-frequency risk can have significant consequences when products are used by millions of Canadians. Risk can also arise from issues such as contamination or inaccurate labelling. This is why an effective regulatory system remains important, even for products generally considered low risk. For pharmacists advising patients, reliable and timely safety information is essential. When serious safety concerns emerge, health professionals need confidence that regulators have the authority to respond effectively. For these reasons, the CPhA believes it is important to maintain the regulatory authorities currently available for natural health products.

I'll now turn to Ashley.

[Ashley McVey, Vice President, Public Affairs, Canadian Pharmacists Association]

Thank you, Ms. Faisal.

Canadians must be able to make informed choices about natural health products. When a serious risk is identified, Health Canada must have the necessary authority to protect the public.

CPhA supports regulation that is proportionate to risk. We recognize concerns about unnecessary regulatory burden and the importance of access to natural health products. These products already have a distinct framework under the natural health products regulations. Their inclusion in the definition of “therapeutic product” also gives Health Canada specific safety authorities under Vanessa’s Law. CPhA’s position is consistent with the advocacy we have brought forward for more than a decade. We supported Vanessa’s Law when it was enacted in 2014, and in May 2023 Senate testimony, we raised concerns about the original exclusion of natural health products and supported extending these protections to help mitigate serious safety risks. We are therefore defending protections that CPhA previously advocated and continues to support.

Our concern is the loss of these specific safety authorities for the products excluded from the bill. Today, when a serious risk involving a natural health product arises, Health Canada can require information to assess that risk, order a label or package change and, where there is a serious or imminent risk, order a recall. These are targeted safety tools intended to allow the regulator to respond when significant concerns arise. Most manufacturers act responsibly when safety concerns present themselves, but a regulator must also have the authority to act when voluntary measures are insufficient. Patient safety should not depend solely on voluntary compliance.

Retaining Vanessa's Law protections does not mean imposing identical requirements on natural health products and prescription drugs. Natural health products already have a distinct regulatory framework. The issue before the committee is whether Health Canada should continue to have the authority to act when serious risks arise.

We also recognize concerns about costs, administrative requirements and patient access. Those concerns should be addressed through targeted, proportionate changes that preserve patient safety rather than through the removal of safety authorities that allow the regulator to respond to serious safety risks. Canadians should be able to access natural health products with confidence that serious risks can be investigated and addressed.

In summary, CPhA recommends that the committee not proceed with Bill C-224 in its current form. Natural health products should remain within the definition of “therapeutic product”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Madam Donsky for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Andrea Donsky, Nutritionist, Morphus Inc.]

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to be here today.

My name is Andrea Donsky. I'm a registered holistic nutritionist, published menopause researcher, best-selling author of Nourishing Menopause, and co-founder of Morphus, a Canadian company focused on perimenopause and menopause.

I come to this conversation from several perspectives. I've personally used supplements for nearly 30 years. I've worked in the natural health industry representing supplement brands for more than 26 years, including launching my own brand. In 2022, I received the Canadian Health Food Association's John Holtmann Leadership Award, recognizing my long-standing contributions to the natural products industry. I also conduct research focused on women 35 and up. Also, I'm the co-founder of Morphus, a women's health education and supplement company.

My work has given me the opportunity to listen to many women over the years. To date, more than 20,000 women have shared their experiences through my company's surveys, and their voices are the foundation of my research. Findings from these surveys have resulted in seven published abstracts in Menopause, the official journal of the Menopause Society, with three more accepted for publication this December, bringing it to a total of 10.

What women are sharing with us is significant. We've documented more than 103 different symptoms of perimenopause and menopause, and women report experiencing an average of 31 different symptoms. This is where supplements become part of the conversation.

In our latest study on women's experiences with health care providers, supplements were among the most commonly recommended treatments, with nearly half reporting that their health care provider had suggested them. When women were asked what treatment options were effective in managing their symptoms, supplements were again among the most common responses, along with exercise and physical activity.

This is a common thread throughout our research. In our doctor's visits survey with more than 1,300 women, supplements were also among the most commonly recommended treatment options. In our sleep research with more than 3,400 women, over 40% said they used supplements to support their sleep.

As you can see, supplements play an important role in how women are managing their health and symptoms, so when we talk about natural health products, this isn't theoretical for me. I use them, health care providers and doctors are recommending them and women are choosing them as part of their health care routine.

As the co-founder of a Canadian women's health company that develops supplements, I also see this from a business perspective. I want to be clear. My business partner Randy and I strongly believe in regulation. We value and respect the safeguards that give consumers confidence in the products they're choosing. However, we also see first-hand how the regulatory environment can negatively impact a Canadian business.

Morphus is a Canadian company, but we launched our supplements in the United States first because it was faster and easier. For three years, we've been working towards launching them in Canada. That's three years of lost revenue for the Canadian market, while Canadian women have been asking us, “When can I buy your products in Canada?”

We hope to launch Morphus supplements in Canada in the new year, because we want Canadian women to have access to the products they're asking for. Women deserve high-quality supplements, appropriate safeguards, good information and the option to make informed choices about their health. That's why I support Bill C-224's proposal to exclude natural health products from the definition of therapeutic product.

As you consider Bill C-224, I hope women's experiences and voices remain at the centre of this conversation and in your final decision.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

We will go to the Traditional Chinese Medicine Association of Canada and Mr. Pierre Chen for five minutes.

[Pierre Chen, Founder and President, Traditional Chinese Medicine Association of Canada]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Pierre. I'm the founder of the Canadian College of Traditional Chinese Medicine. I'm also a licensed practitioner of Chinese medicine and acupuncture. I have experience with importation and regulation, and I'm also the subject matter expert through the Standards Council of Canada under ISO technical committees 249 and 215. I'm here to explain why, from the perspective of traditional Chinese medicine, it's important to pass Bill C-224.

First, we need to understand that “natural health products” is a very broad category. It includes everyday products such as herbs, vitamins, minerals, homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine and also ethnomedicines of first nations. To make this easier to understand, currently, Health Canada classifies everyday products under “natural health products”: Toothpaste, sunscreen lotion and lip balms—these are considered some of the low-risk items. When we talk about natural health products, we're not talking about one uniform category of high risk covering everything; there are broad categories.

Risks can be very different. Even water has risks. If you label water as a natural health product.... The only difference between water and a natural health product is that a bottle of water does not label that it treats dehydration, but, when it does, it becomes a natural health product. If you label water as a natural health product, then you'll need risk information—the risk of overdosing, causing water poisoning or drowning. That's the difference between a natural health product and an everyday product.

This is important for Canada, because natural health product regulations address the unique nature of these things. Canada describes this framework today as “separate and distinct...from prescription drugs”, and it's appropriate to the generalities of the low-risk nature of NHPs. That doesn't mean we're claiming that natural health products are risk-free, as they're not—as an example, as I said previously, water is not risk-free, depending on the substance, dose, concentration, formulation, manufacturing quality and how this product is used—but we're claiming that NHPs are already regulated.

A finished natural health product generally requires a product licence before it can be sold, and manufacturers and importers are subject to site licensing. GMPs—regulating addresses, ingredients, dosage, health claims, warnings, contamination, adverse reactions and recalls—already exist, so to add these on top of it is just unnecessary. Traditional Chinese medicine—TCM—businesses already address quality issues such as identifying microbial contamination, pesticides and heavy metals, when applicable.

The question raised is whether Bill C-224 should remain within the Food and Drugs Act category of “therapeutic product”. Remember, this additional protection that people are talking about is Vanessa's Law. Its full name is Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act, so it was applied, originally, to a drugs act, but it was not applied to health claims for food and things like that.

These additional authorities include mandatory recall for serious or imminent health risks, although Health Canada has already done recalls in the past. If you have products that require a recall, they say, “Okay, you have to recall or we'll fine you, or we'll take away your natural health product licence. We'll take away your site licence.” Those measures are already in place. You don't need an additional Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act—also known as Vanessa's Law—to the Food and Drugs Act in order to take it out of the drugs act to apply it to natural health products.

An important question for the committee to talk about today is proportionality. What is the proportion you want to use? In Chinese medicine, a lot of the common herbs that we use are food. Ginger and cinnamon are common things that we use, in Chinese medicine, as therapeutic products. How much recall do you need for a piece of ginger that we have health claims for versus one that you sell in a supermarket?

Another example I like to use is Canadian ginseng. Right now, Canada is one of the biggest producers of North American ginseng in the world. Canadian farmers can harvest and grow ginseng as an agricultural raw material. Having this additional labelling actually prohibits these farmers from selling it as a natural health product in Canada. They could sell it as food and raw material. They would sell it to China to further process it, and then China would sell it back, because it's cheaper that way.

It is the same for our gas. That's what we're trying to do. We're creating red tape and then making further red tape reductions in the future, which makes no sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chen. We have a very tight timeline. I appreciate your comments.

We'll go to Madam Dancho for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for your opening testimonies. I really appreciate your expertise.

I have a few questions for Ms. Donsky.

I wanted to talk to you a bit about the concerns from your industry and like-minded industries across Canada regarding access for consumers and the choices they have of the products they need. You mentioned that you're an expert in menopause and in treating menopause in Canadian women with natural health products and other products. Thank you very much for that. It's related, but I wanted to talk to you about fertility as well. There are similar discussions that go on for women.

Again, I wanted to legitimize, for folks who may not know, the importance of natural health products. It's not just nutritionists, naturopaths and your pharmacist who may be recommending them. It's also medical doctors.

For example, I wanted to read you this list and then get your comments generally. At a fertility clinic in Manitoba, the medical physicians recommend prenatal vitamins, coenzyme Q10, omega-3s, vitamin E, vitamin C, vitamin D and açai berry. Those are recommendations from medical doctors, and I know a naturopath recommended basically the same list.

I'm wondering if you are concerned that my access, your access and others' access to these products may diminish over time if we continue down this regulatory path that the Liberal government has been on for quite some time.

[Andrea Donsky]

Yes, I am very concerned, and I definitely want to make sure that doesn't happen.

Over 20,000 women have answered our surveys. They are telling us that natural supplements are a big part of how they're managing their health and their symptoms. For me, as I said, as someone who uses them and is also hearing from the women in our community who are in perimenopause and menopause and are hearing from their doctors and health care providers.... They are the ones recommending magnesium, omega-3s, vitamin D, vitamin K2 MK-7 and fibre. These are important parts of managing our health, and I am concerned that could be an issue going forward, if it does.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Right, and if you go to a health food store or pharmacy and you see natural health products, there may be various types of magnesium, but I think the concern.... What I'm hearing from Liberal questioning today is that they're not against natural health products, but they are in favour of a much stricter regulatory regime, which will limit our options, as you and others have been saying. It will also impact Canadian companies.

You mentioned that you have a product for menopause that you've launched, but my understanding is that you launched it in the U.S. and not in Canada. I'm guessing that wasn't your first choice, though.

[Andrea Donsky]

It wasn't our first choice. We really did want to launch here, but because of the regulatory issues, it was faster to get to market. We had to wait for NPNs here. Obviously, it was going to take a longer time to get it to market here, so we chose to go that route.

When this came into effect, we wanted to know how it would impact decisions and choices for consumers and how it would affect our insurance costs and our costs of doing business here.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

My understanding of the changes that the Liberal government has made is that natural health products are now, again, increasingly regulated like pharmaceuticals, which means their makers are increasingly facing the penalties that pharmaceutical companies can face.

Pfizer and other big companies like that are multi-billion-dollar companies. They can withstand a $50,000 licensing fee, for example, and a cost recovery measure, but small upstarts making menopause products or other products are going to have a lot more challenges when facing a similar cost recovery.

My understanding is also that under the current Liberal regime, makers of natural health products, like makers of pharmaceuticals, can face multi-million-dollar fines as penalties daily, which would obviously be absolutely crushing for a company that would want to comply very quickly. The idea that you can come down with something that could bankrupt that company just seems very unfair.

What are your comments as a provider of these products?

[Andrea Donsky]

It wouldn't even be an option for us here. That's probably one of the biggest obstacles for us. If we were to get hit with some type of fine, as you said, we're obviously going to comply.... Regulation isn't huge for me and my business partner, but we wouldn't be able to survive.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much.

Again, it's disappointing to hear that a woman and a founder of a company making products for women going through menopause....

I will say one thing, and I know that you will agree: For the first time in history, women's symptoms during menopause are being taken seriously, and it's not, “Well, that's just how it is.” The idea that you and others like you are bringing forward Canadian-generated products that I can't access as a Canadian woman seems quite outrageous. Those are many issues that extend beyond today's conversation but are very complementary to our concerns with the current regulatory regime of the Liberal government for natural health products.

Do you have any concluding comments?