Health Committee on Oct. 5th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You have 24 seconds.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Can I share my time with Dr. Jaczek?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Ms. Kramchynsky, you've alluded to the fact that Health Canada is working with your association, and no doubt other stakeholders as well, in terms of reducing the amount of red tape. Obviously, some of this has been alluded to by Ms. Parmar and so on. Do you feel confident that there is real progress being made in this regard?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

The six minutes are up.

If you can, give a brief response in 20 seconds.

[Roberta Kramchynsky]

Very briefly, I am confident in those processes. We will always have some hesitance, I think, until we see draft regulations in front of us, but we have been working very hard on policy development. We've recently completed a cost-benefit analysis—along with others on this panel, I'm sure—from a trade association perspective. We're working towards next spring for draft regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Madame Gaudreau for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us.

This bill had to be reintroduced after an election. Obviously, my colleagues worked really hard on it.

I'll say outright that there are businesses in my constituency and in other parts of Quebec. I'm just talking about the Clef des Champs in Val‑David, which is in my constituency. I would like to know whether you agree that credible regulations can also protect businesses that do things the right way.

[Sonia Parmar]

I agree. I would say that the Clef des Champs, for example, is a key company. It's also one of the companies that would face significant risks given recent developments. The Clef des Champs uses many ingredients and herbs. The products are truly blended, and there are many of them.

Of course, regulations are important. However, that's not really the topic of discussion right now. The issue is more about where the limit lies and how far the process will go. We can all see and understand that herbs of this nature aren't necessarily drugs. The Clef des Champs would be an extremely significant example. This company will face risks, and more so than other companies. It will face greater risks than vitamin companies and other companies. Its products are made with great care. They come from nature. They aren't like drugs, which have specific ingredients and a strict process in place. They come from nature. We want to preserve this with regulations that make sense for these types of products. We support regulations, but within limits.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Ms. Kramchynsky, I would like to hear your thoughts. Do you agree?

[Roberta Kramchynsky]

Yes. I think that credible regulatory system and what it offers to businesses that are compliant is an incredibly important aspect of having a strong regulatory system. It starts to form part of that social licence for these companies to produce the products they do produce in such a way that consumers know they can trust them to be safe and of good quality, and to do what they say.

There's also the element, especially when I'm thinking about the members we represent, that they are seeking how to be compliant. They are looking to be compliant. They're not looking to the regulatory system to provide them with ways to circumvent safety. They are looking to that regulatory system to help give that sense of safety and quality to their consumers, whether they're in Canada or exporting those products around the world.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'm also concerned about advertisements on social media. This holds true for a woman entering menopause, for example, just as much as it applies to a 30‑year‑old man who wants to lose weight or an athlete. Everything seems so magical. You just open it up. You have candies or capsules, and everything is miraculous.

Could this digital phenomenon undermine the industry's credibility?

[Sonia Parmar]

In my opinion, it won't. The phenomenon was studied between 1998 and 2004. It took a long time. The regulations established are really strict, especially compared to the regulations in other countries.

That isn't the issue. The issue is how far the process will go, because there's a limit. When this limit is exceeded, there are never any issues with the products, which are safe. The debate isn't about determining whether the products are safe. The debate is about determining where the limit lies. Will more and more regulations be imposed? That's what we're seeing. Sometimes, we see this in the interpretation of the regulations.

Even now, as we debate the regulations, that isn't the issue. It goes beyond that. It's ongoing. Whether it's labelling, Vanessa's Law or cost recovery, everything has been established for drugs. People didn't take the time to truly understand these products. Now they're playing catch‑up. More consultations are being held now. However, when everything that we've been discussing was established, the necessary consultations weren't held. That's why we're here.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

We're talking about a lack of consultation, but we still need to regulate. I'm having trouble keeping up. How far will the process go? If it's a completely open market, how do we get there?

[Sonia Parmar]

That's the point. The market isn't open. We have regulations in place right now. These regulations worked for years.

Yet things have gradually changed, and these changes are driving up costs. There are more rules. The more the products resemble drugs, the more rules are imposed. That's what keeps driving up costs.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Vice‑Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Parmar.

We'll go on to Mr. Bailey for five minutes, please.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all our expert witnesses.

Mr. Buckley, I'm going to be asking you a series of questions. I'd like to keep it brief, so that we can get through the whole list.

Please describe your experience when dealing with Health Canada and the regulatory regime. I'm always hearing from organizations and medical professionals that Health Canada is a major roadblock when it comes to getting things done. Briefly, in your experience with them, has anything improved at all?

[Shawn Buckley]

I started in 1994, acting for Health Canada against an herbalist named Jim Strauss. Then I started my own firm, and I ended up acting for that herbalist, as Health Canada had convinced the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC to attack them. We were successful in that case, and then people started phoning me.

I've practised law now for 32 years. I'm working on my 33rd year. About half of my practice for those 33 years has been dealing with Health Canada when Health Canada charges natural health product companies under the Food and Drugs Act. I expect I have defended in court more natural health product companies that have been charged than all other Canadian lawyers combined. Of course, Health Canada usually doesn't charge. They just bully and send you letters. They seize your property without reporting it to court, and they have the media do public advisories to destroy your business and bully you that way.

I've run interference and guided companies through that. In those 32 years, I'm aware of two times that a company failed to recall when Health Canada asked them to recall, and I represented both of those companies. One of them was Truehope. A court acquitted them and thanked them for defying Health Canada and for not recalling, because there would have been more deaths. The court found as a fact that it caused deaths. The other one I can't name, as I don't have permission to name them, but Health Canada was recalling nattokinase. The problem was that a whole bunch of medical doctors, as well as other practitioners, were managing patients using nattokinase as a blood thinner.

When a client comes to me and says, “Health Canada is asking me to recall,” I have to ask them, “Will that cause harm?” Under the Criminal Code, you can't have a remedy out there and then withdraw it from the market and cause death or suffering, because you'll have committed, at the very least, criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm. Parliament has put that obligation on you, but a Health Canada employee can put a different obligation on you. Now you have competing obligations in a recall.

We hired a medical doctor who was a risk analysis expert, and they said, “No, stop shipping, but don't you dare do a recall. Immediately send posters to every single health food store in Canada, advising Canadians that they can no longer get nattokinase. Go to your medical practitioner. By the way, you can order it from the United States and import it perfectly fine,” so that Canadians could be protected. The problem with having a recall provision—and I know that's a thing here—is that, even for dangerous chemical drugs, Health Canada should not have the authority to recall. It should be supervised by court, because that's a medical decision.

Let's talk about a chemical. A chemical is approved for a certain condition. Doctors will be prescribing it for off-label use. Health Canada can't know what harm they may or may not be causing when they order a recall, but if you have a court supervise a recall and have a provision whereby doctors and patients can then go and get access, that's reasonable.

Anyway, I'm probably the most experienced person out there in dealing with Health Canada.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I would like to talk about fair penalties and how they would affect a mom-and-pop shop compared with Jamieson or Pfizer. Can you speak to what it would do to a small organization if they were ever to receive a penalty or a fine, compared with these large companies that would just take it on the chin?

[Shawn Buckley]

Just so people understand, before we were moved into the therapeutic product category, the maximum penalty was three years in jail and a $5,000 fine, and you could receive both of those. Monetarily, that might sound low, but when you're charged, every company is traumatized, because most of them are small. Now it's $5 million per day of an offence.

I spoke earlier about how we have 100% censorship. I know for a fact, because I've advised them, that there are naturopathic doctors who are no longer saying things like, “Intravenous vitamin C can mitigate cancer.” It absolutely can, but everyone's now self-censoring, because even a fraction of that will absolutely destroy them.

I mentioned Truehope. There are 32 government-funded, peer-reviewed publications, including one by the Alberta government, which did a double-blind clinical trial out of a children's hospital in Calgary. They took that off their Canadian website when we were moved into the therapeutic product category. Americans can access it, and anyone else in the world can too, but they're not risking getting shut down over these $5-million-per-day fines.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you very much. We're out of time. I did provide the additional 25 seconds that was allotted in an earlier round, so we're even now.

Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

We will go over to the Liberals, with Madam Sidhu.

You have five minutes. Thank you.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming, for joining the health committee and for giving us insight.

My question goes to FHCP, to Ms. Kramchynsky. You talked about Vanessa's Law, designed for consumer protection. How do we achieve effective oversight on products already in the market to ensure consumer health and safety? Can you explain that?

[Roberta Kramchynsky]

Thank you.

Vanessa's Law—I did mention that in my comments—is a part of what would be affected by Bill C-224. It is one of those sets of powers that are available, when required and determined necessary to be used, to the minister.

When we look at what achieves effective oversight for those products that are in the market, I look to the natural health products regulations and different elements of that framework—things like product labelling. One key element to ensuring that a product is used safely is ensuring that it has clear labelling that can be understood by the consumer. That's one of those things we're looking to ensure are reformed and made more effective for the consumer. It is also cost-effective for manufacturers, at the same time, through the regulatory reforms we're contemplating under red tape reduction.

Other elements of that effective oversight are things like the postmarket measures—inspections, being able to renew site licences and to consider what has been changing or what has changed in these places where these products are manufactured.

One key element that our regulatory system provides, from a general perspective and overall approach, is that these products that Canadians use or that Canadian manufacturers are exporting to markets around the world have had a review for safety, efficacy and quality. That is a really important element of trust that consumers can rely on. It also ensures that it holds companies up to a high level of compliance to ensure that they're delivering that to consumers.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

You talked about the labelling. Do you think the labelling increased cost? Some of the statements I was listening to said the additional power granted under the expansion of Vanessa's Law had the potential to increase costs for producers. In your experience, do you think it increased the cost for the labelling?