Debates of May 22nd, 2024

Food and Drugs Act

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a true honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak, especially on behalf of the residents of Peterborough—Kawartha and, of course, the many Canadians across this country who rely on natural health products.

I want to give a big shout-out to my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe for bringing forward the bill. Could we have a round of applause, please, for my colleague? Members are tired at this time of the day; it is hard to rally them. However, this is a big one. Maybe they need some vitamins. Maybe that is what they need to put a little pep in their step, and that is exactly what we are talking about today.

We are talking about things that almost every Canadian uses. Maybe it is their toothpaste. Maybe it is their deodorant. Maybe it is their vitamins, melatonin, magnesium, protein bars or Chinese herbal medicine. These are things that many Canadians rely on every single day of their life to help manage their health and to help them live a better, more fulfilled life. Sadly, these products are under attack.

I got elected in 2021. There have been two instances of extreme correspondence to my office. One was regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The second was regarding natural health products. It is unbelievable the correspondence that has come through my office about this. People are asking why the Liberal-NDP government would want to attack natural health products. Why would it want to go after those and make it so that business owners who offer these products, these vitamins and supplements, can no longer function?

Let us break it down and talk about what the bill is and why Conservatives are very excited to support it, as well as my colleague, as I mentioned, for putting it forward. In summary, the enactment of the bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide that natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of that act and are therefore not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs.

This is for people at home, and I always think about my sister, who watches this and asks, “What does that even mean?”. It means that people's prescription drugs or big pharma or opioids, which are a massive crisis in this country, are subject to regulations and are self-funded by Health Canada. Natural health products have very strict regulations as well, but the bill before us in particular would ensure that they are safe and able to continue to be available in the stores where they are sold.

What Health Canada has tried to do is, again, kind of like Groundhog Day in this place, because it is the same everywhere with overreach. Health Canada wants to go into the pockets of the micro-businesses, often operated by women, and say that they are going to have to pay the government more money. Health Canada wants to decide what the business owners do with their products and will ultimately bankrupt them and force the products out of Canada.

I am going to provide some quick stats for members. Natural health product businesses contribute $5.5 billion to the Canadian economy and $2.8 billion in taxable revenue. Eighty-two per cent of Canadians use NHPs, and I bet that number is actually low. Over 80% of businesses in the sector are small or medium-sized. Producers of 70% of the brands have indicated that they will need to withdraw products from the market. We can start to see that if the private member's bill before us were not introduced, this would be detrimental to the industry, based on the Health Canada policy that was put forward.

Fifty per cent of small businesses in the sector have a woman CEO. One in five businesses is contemplating shutting down due to the proposed changes. One in five businesses is considering exiting Canada. According to Statistics Canada, women are much more likely to purchase natural health products to manage their health and wellness.

We all know we have a health care crisis in this country. We have folks lining up to get to see a doctor, and they do not have access to a doctor, so for many people, accessing natural health products is a big thing. I think every member of the House can stand up and tell a story of where natural health products have made a big difference in their life.

I want to read some testimonies from correspondence I have gotten, because it is critical in this place that we elevate the voices of the people who are outside the House, the people who elected us to be here to elevate their voices. These are some of the messages I have gotten about the Liberal-NDP policy that would overreach and would ultimately decimate the natural health product industry. Thankfully the bill would be able to protect them, and that is what we are really talking about today.

The first piece of correspondence reads, “Recently, I saw your post regarding the Liberal government going after natural health products next. Truly, I was not shocked that they would go after NHPs [as many people refer to them] because really there isn't much left for them to have their hands on. I use natural health products for a number of reasons. I do not support the tax of NHPs.”

Here is another one: “many people including myself use products such as iron, calcium, B vitamins, vitamin C, and I find it appalling that the government thinks that these products should be taken off the shelves in Canada. They obviously only want big pharma products available to Canadians.” We know the mess that big pharma has created in this country. I always will take any opportunity I can to tell people at home to please watch Dopesick. The opioid crisis and addiction crisis in this country really paint a picture of how government and big pharma destroyed the lives of so many people.

Another message says, “The new proposed laws concerning NHPs is very damaging to the future of my business. We have been in business for 20 years..., and have approximately 7,200 clients in that period of time. During that time, we haven't had a single problem related to safety and efficacy of the herbs that we use. We currently use 485 separate herbs. As you well know, the vast majority of these herbs are spices and edible plants that any consumer could grow in their own garden. How is it that Health Canada could stop the people's access to their medicinal properties? Many of these clients wish to use this mode of health care, which keeps pressure off local hospital rooms and the medical systems, which are already overloaded and backlogged.”

The message goes on to say, “There are many small businesses in Ontario like mine, possibly hundreds of businesses which contribute well over $100,000 a year in HST and source deductions. Our business has five people on payroll. I feel that if these new bills are enforced and erode their ability to both buy and sell herbs, it will force us out of business.”

The same message asks, “Has anyone bothered to do a total cost/risk/reward analysis to see what the actual benefits are to the constituency, the economy, and health outcomes in the long haul?". It concludes with this: “I hope that Health Canada will come to the realization that their current direction and implementation of the bills will...be a sad day for Canadians.”

There is a very interesting point in there, because when we talk to the Canadian Health Food Association, we learn that there was not proper consultation ever, and we have seen this across the board in so many areas with the current government. It is just overreach, and I guess I always come back to this question: Why?

It is pretty simple. If the Liberal-NDP government overspends and recklessly spends, which we have seen, and let us take the arrive scam app, which should have cost $80,000 and cost a minimum of $60 million, or a green slush fund that cost a billion dollars, then it has to make that money up. It is just basic math. The government does not have any money; it has taxpayers' money, but wait. If it does not have enough money, who is it going to go after? The Liberal-NDP government will go after the little guy, which is what it does over and over again.

Small businesses are the heartbeat, 98%, of the economy, and they are being trashed, destroyed and decimated under the Liberal-NDP government, and these are the women-owned businesses. I want to just touch on this, because Jules Gorham is the director of Regulatory Affairs for the Canadian Health Food Association, and she gave very powerful testimony at the status of women committee, which I sit on. A big piece really jumped out at me, and I think this is a real take-home message because we have a government and a Prime Minister that are clearly fake feminists, and there is a Liberal mandate for a gender-based analysis on things they do. Guess where the Liberals did not do a gender-based analysis?

This is from Jules Gorham's testimony at committee:

Unfortunately, it's a well-known fact that women have been historically neglected in research. There is a scarcity of data on women. Health Canada's latest regulatory reform on [natural health products] is yet another example. Prior to publishing its proposal on cost recovery fees, Health Canada did not conduct any analysis on the impacts to Canadians, including a gender-based analysis. They left it to business owners to do the math and decide if they can afford to stay in business.

This is despite having a mandate saying that the Liberals would do a gender-based analysis. They do not put women first. They do not put Canadians first. They put their big government first, and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-368 with respect to natural health products, and its potential impact on the ability of Canadians to have confidence in the natural health products on their shelves.

Canadians expect the products that they buy in Canada to be safe for use and consumption.

This includes the natural health products we use every day, such as vitamins, herbal medicines, sunscreen, toothpaste and hand sanitizer.

I want to acknowledge the importance of natural health products. They are something that many of our constituents use for their own well-being. I have heard that from many of my constituents as well. There is no question that natural health products are lower-risk than prescription drugs, but the reality is they are not risk-free. They can actually cause serious harm in certain circumstances. In particular, if not manufactured properly, natural health products can contain unsafe levels of ingredients or be contaminated with other substances that can be harmful. They can also be advertised or labelled in a misleading manner.

Take, for example, probiotics. While they are low-risk and in fact beneficial in many cases, these products as a whole are not without risk. Over the last six years, there have been six reports of sepsis associated with one brand of probiotic, the majority of which were in premature infants, and five of which had an outcome of death. That is why postmarket safety surveillance is so important.

In fact, between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023, Health Canada received 930 adverse reaction reports where a natural health product was suspected of being responsible for the adverse reaction, with the majority, 692, reported as serious.

Consumers trust these products to contribute to their health and well-being. That is why we need to ensure that natural health products can be used safely and that they are not the subject of false claims.

However, Conservatives want to take us back to a time when we can recall a contaminated tube of lipstick or head of lettuce, but not a contaminated vitamin or supplement.

Now I want to talk a bit about the subject of the bill, Bill C-368, which is Vanessa's Law.

In June 2023, Vanessa's Law, or the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act, was extended to include natural health products. This action was taken to correct a gap that was left in 2014 when Vanessa's Law was initially passed for other health products. This law gives Health Canada the additional tools to take swift action if marketed products are deemed unsafe. As it stands now, Vanessa's Law gives Health Canada the authority to mandate product recalls and label revisions for unsafe natural health products where there are serious or imminent risks to the health and safety of Canadians.

The tools afforded by Vanessa's Law are important for the well-being and safety of Canadians. They protect Canadians, but not at the cost of hurting Canadian businesses. In fact, there should be no impact on businesses that are following the rules in manufacturing and selling to Canadians products that are safe. These authorities are used only if a company should refuse to co-operate in taking voluntary action to mitigate a serious health risk, as is the typical practice for other lines of health products and food.

Bill C-368 seeks to repeal the expanded powers granted by Vanessa's Law, which would prevent Health Canada from recalling dangerous products or adding warnings to labels when companies refuse to do it themselves.

The government can mandate recalls of other health products, as well as food like produce in grocery stores that is contaminated with E. coli, but with Bill C-368, Health Canada would not have the authority to require the recall of a natural health product contaminated with E. coli, which could be equally dangerous to the lives of our constituents.

Should not users of natural health products also be afforded the confidence that the products on the shelves can be used safely? Adopting Bill C-368 would leave the health of Canadians in the hands of industry to decide when it is appropriate to issue a recall or update the label with new warnings. There is just no reason for natural health products to be exempted from Vanessa's Law.

One of the main sources of problems comes from cases of deficient manufacturing practices that result in product contamination.

Before Vanessa's Law was applied to natural health products, Health Canada did not have the power to enforce recalls and had only a limited ability to remove dangerous natural health products from the market.

The concerns I am expressing today are not about theoretical risks. Since 2018, there have been over 300 voluntary recalls of licensed natural health products for safety issues. For example, during the pandemic, when hand sanitizer use was at its highest, Health Canada found toxic chemicals like methanol and benzine in these products but had to rely on voluntary action from companies to remove these products from the market. Other examples of product issues resulting from unsanitary manufacturing conditions include contamination with bacteria, fibreglass and other foreign materials.

Should we really rely solely on the goodwill of industry to recall a product contaminated with fibreglass or toxic chemicals?

In 2021, the independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development highlighted Health Canada's lack of power to recall natural health products as an important gap. The commissioner reported that contaminated natural health products remained available to consumers on store shelves for many months because Health Canada could rely only on the goodwill of companies to undertake voluntary recalls. Between 2021 and 2022, Health Canada inspected 36 importers and manufacturers of natural health products and found high levels of non-compliance with safe manufacturing practices. Issues were identified in all 36 sites inspected, ranging in severity, with 42% requiring immediate action.

Issues requiring the Vanessa's Law authorities go beyond product quality problems. For example, in 2021, Health Canada conducted an online surveillance study of health claims made by natural health products and found that more than 1,600 authorized natural health products made illegitimate cancer-related claims in their advertising. Think of the impact this could have on a cancer patient who is looking for relief and puts their trust solely in a product that cannot back up its claims. This is unacceptable. In fact, it is dangerous.

Canadians expect better, and they deserve better. Bill C-368 would roll back the protections of Vanessa's Law, exposing Canadians to unacceptable risks. This includes potentially allowing unsafe products to remain on the market longer and subjecting natural health products to a different, less rigorous set of rules than all other health products and food. It puts the power to determine actions in the most serious cases of health risks in the hands of industry and not the regulator. Is that what we want?

I submit that Canadians would expect more from their government. They expect that the government is able to take action and remove natural health products from the market when they are deemed unsafe, just like it can remove a shipment of contaminated lettuce or cough medication.

Some members have raised concerns about how the extension of Vanessa's Law could impact the availability of natural health products. I want to stress that product availability will not change with Vanessa's Law. Unsafe products will be removed more quickly from the market, but safe products will continue to be available. Compliant companies and products will not be impacted.

It is not just about recalls. Vanessa's Law authorities also allow the court to determine a more appropriate fine or penalty should a company be convicted of an offence related to a natural health product that poses serious health and safety risks to Canadians, creating a legitimate deterrent for non-compliance. Canadians are counting on us to safeguard the marketplace from unsafe products.

We need to ensure that those who buy natural health products are able to have confidence in the safety of those products. We are talking about public health and safety here.

It is too important to leave to chance. It is too important and time-sensitive to rely on voluntary compliance. Vanessa's Law gives Health Canada the authorities it needs to take immediate action to remove unsafe natural health products from the marketplace if a company refuses to do so voluntarily. It is an important tool that strengthens the market and the reputation of the industry in Canada, as it helps ensure that these widely used products are safe.

I encourage all members to vote against this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise. My colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha talked about this being Groundhog Day, and it seems as if we are talking about this particular topic over and over again.

My colleague from Ottawa Centre, who spoke just a minute ago, was talking about the safety of these products. It is interesting, because the reason any health warnings were found about these products was that inspections were already conducted by Health Canada. Therefore, by grabbing more money from the small and medium-sized businesses that are actually producing natural health products for the benefit of Canadians, these changes are not going to make those inspections any better or any more frequent. I find that a bit fascinating.

The other thing that is absolutely fascinating is what we have on the opposite side of the House. We have a government that had a crazy experiment, a wacko experiment we might say, to actually decriminalize opioids, which we know failed miserably. Without the Conservatives on this side of the House actually stopping the Liberals, they were on the path to wanting to legalize drugs like meth, crack, cocaine, amphetamines and fentanyl here in Canada, in our backyards, in our school grounds, in front of businesses and in front of residences all across this country.

Thankfully, there was an incredible intervention by team Conservative. We were able to make enough interventions so that people realized how bad of an idea this was. The crime, chaos, drugs and disorder that have happened across this great country have been unfathomable. It is certainly something that Canadians need to bear in mind when we talk about the incredible want on the NDP-Liberal side to take away natural health products.

I know that many of my colleagues spoke about this previously, but I do think it bears repeating. When we look at the multitude of issues that have come before this House in the last two and a half years since I have been here, the issue that people have written to me the most about and approached me the most about, just walking along the street, in our own backyards, is really related to natural health products. Canadians have made it incredibly clear that they do not want the government interfering, as it wants to do, with their natural health products.

I know some of this is a bit repetitive, but I think it bears repeating. We know from statistics that over 80% of Canadians use natural health products on a regular basis. I listened with great interest when my colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha talked about how the impacts of the changes the government is on the road to making, without the intervention of Bill C-368, are a harm to female entrepreneurs. That cannot be said enough in this House.

We hear that Conservatives are against women and Conservatives are against women's rights. We hear this every single day. It is actually quite nauseating. We actually understand that, on the opposite side, the NDP-Liberal coalition members are the ones who want to undermine the health, well-being and financial success of female entrepreneurs. We know that 80% of businesses in the natural health products sector are small businesses, and 50% of these businesses are managed by CEOs who are females.

There is no better way for people to ensure their success in this world than to be their own boss. When someone is the master of their own destiny, that creates a security and a need for nobody else. From my perspective, my wife and I have been married almost 34 years. She is a female entrepreneur. When I look at her success and the satisfaction it brings her to know that she certainly does not have to rely on me and that she is incredibly successful, that is the kind of thing I would want for my daughters as well, and for any entrepreneur in this great country. They should be able to say they are the master of their own destiny.

When we look at the regulations that have also been brought in, the member for Ottawa Centre went on and on about safety, etc. I know he was not at the health committee when this happened, so maybe we can cut him some slack based on that. Interestingly enough, the chief medical adviser for Health Canada was at the committee and talked about some of the disinformative statistics that the member spoke about previously. When we pressed the chief medical adviser for Health Canada on where the statistics were, the answer we were given was “Oh, you can look them up in the database.” Of course, doing our due diligence, we attempted to do so. The conflated numbers they actually presented in no way, shape, or form reflect reality.

When we begin to look at this, the safety of natural health products is beyond reproach. Are there oftentimes difficulties in manufacturing? Yes. Health Canada, to its credit, has discovered some of those things, which is important. That happens in many different industries where the manufacturing process is studied to make things better by doing this, that or the other thing. That will be important to continue, but is it necessary to attempt to kill small and medium-sized business-based enterprises in this country? When these regulations continue, if the rest of our colleagues do not realize the importance of Bill C-368, what will happen is that this industry will die. Then what will happen?

We know that 80% of Canadians use these products on a regular basis, and they will continue to use them. When they continue to use them, that means they are going to have to buy them somewhere else, other than from the great Canadian industry that we have, which we know is incredibly safe. The regulations that exist here in this country at the current time, barring the changes that the NDP-Liberal costly coalition wanted to make in the last budget, are the envy of the rest of the world. We have heard that. We did much research on this last year, when we went through all this foolishness before. Australia said it wanted to adopt what Canada is doing because it is so great. The regulations are absolutely incredible. When we tell them that the costly coalition wants to meddle with the regulations, they ask why we would want to do that, as we have a great system now.

We look at increasing the cost of products by 50% to 75%, and we see 20% of small businesses in Canada having to close. We see some of the other kind of ridiculous regulations, such as increasing the label size to put more warnings, words and cautions, etc. The anti-plastic crew over here is increasing the amount of plastic that is going to have to be used to do it, at a cost of about $200,000 per product. It has often been said that this is regulation looking for something to regulate, as well as looking for another way to fuel the Liberals' ridiculous spending.

Let us look at another industry, the prescription drug industry. I know some of my colleagues briefly talked about this. We know that the prescription drug industry harms seniors every year. The cost to the Canadian economy is about $2 billion every year due to the harm created by prescription drugs. Do we hear the NDP-Liberal coalition saying that we need to have more regulations related to that? No, we do not hear that.

I think the other thing we need to know is the reason the government is going after this. The reason, of course, is related to an easy target to get more money to fuel its spending, which is costing Canadians greatly. We know that more and more Canadians, sadly, are going to food banks. We saw Food Banks Canada's 2024 report that came out showing that 50% more Canadians feel financially worse off compared to last year and that 25% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity.

This is a bill to fuel the government's spending habit, which is a sad commentary on a government that is out of ideas and out of time. We will continue to see these things, which will negatively affect the health of Canadians and their confidence to make the right decisions about their health care at the right time on their own terms.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the Conservative doctor across the way. After listening to what the Conservatives say, I want to ask them about expressing concern about Canadians and their well-being. When I think about what is being talked about today, why would they oppose a government having the authority to protect the health of Canadians?

It was misleading information when the member said that we would see businesses close down and the industry would be devastated if this legislation does not pass. What garbage. That is what it is. We just heard a lot of garbage and misinformation. Industry representatives see the value of what is happening and what is being provided.

An interesting statistic came to my mind when reading about this. In 2021, Health Canada found that more than 1,600 authorized natural health products companies made illegitimate cancer-related claims in their advertising. After listening to members opposite, one would think that there are no issues at all. If anyone wants to put together some sort of recipe, compress it into a pill format and sell it, Canadians do not have to worry because all those entrepreneurs are not interested solely in money, but in the health and well-being of average Canadians.

I say it does not work that way. The government does have a role to play. I do not quite understand why opposition parties would look at this legislation and say that they are not concerned about the government not being able to get something recalled. I think there are legitimate concerns. It is a wonderful industry, and I do not question that. There are many natural health products out there, and we should look at ways to incorporate them into our health care system. Many of my constituents use the products, as I know many Canadians do in all regions of the country.

We are not saying that there is no role or no place for the products in society. In fact, I would suggest there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, but, equally, there is nothing wrong with ensuring there is a mechanism in place that protects the health and well-being of Canadians, whether it is through a product that might proclaim that it does x, when in fact there is no science to substantiate it or when it is completely misleading. We know that does take place. Even in terms of medications, government has the ability to enforce some form of recall. Why would we not allow for something of that nature with regard to natural health products? I would think it just stands to reason.

The biggest concern I have is the misinformation that is being provided across the way, giving the impression that entrepreneurs and business people in communities throughout the country would shut down the industry if this legislation does not pass. I believe we would find that a vast majority of people see the merit in making sure that there is a safe supply and that there are opportunities for this industry to do well. Having some form of regulation is not a bad thing. It has nothing to do with the government trying to raise additional money.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe for his right of reply.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues for their support and for speaking to Bill C-368, but I want to remind people how we arrived here.

There seem to be some forgetful folks. Even though I am thanking the NDP for its position, I would like to remind people how we arrived at this place. We are at this point with natural health products because of a budget implementation act, Bill C-47, which was passed for budget 2023. The authority for that came from a promise made by the leader of the NDP in March 2022 to form a coalition, a supply and confidence agreement, with the Liberal government, which meant carte blanche. It was going to support every budget and every budget implementation act that it had not even seen, discussed nor been party to. It gave that power to the Liberal government, and that is why we are here today.

While I appreciate the NDP's revisionist history on this, it is the reason this change happened in the first place. I am glad it is supporting this bill, which would take the legislative framework back where it was with the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper and where we had the best natural health product regulations, framework and industry in the world. There is no need to tamper any further with the natural health product industry.

I want to talk about freedom of choice in health care, as this is a huge issue. Over 80% of Canadians, and I suspect it is even more, are using natural health products. This is about that freedom of choice and losing that choice. I believe the Canadian Health Food Association, the Natural Health Product Protection Association, the Direct Sellers Association of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business when they say that the changes being proposed by the Liberal government, through Health Canada's changes to the definition of therapeutic products to include natural health products, is going to kill and stifle business. I believe them when they say that because we have a nine-year track record of the government doing nothing but harm to the economy of this country. The government is going to continue to do it to this beautiful, wonderful industry that gives Canadians the choice they need to look after their own personal health.

Finally, I want to thank all the Canadians who have reached out to members of Parliament in a very active campaign to let MPs know how important this is to them. I want to thank the mothers out there who look after their families. I know my wife is the same way. She had a full-time job on top of her full-time job of raising the family while I was here in Ottawa. She wanted to help our kids, to help our family and to keep us healthy. She wanted to make sure we had the best possible health outcomes that we could have. I want to thank all the women who make up the largest part of the workforce and the entrepreneurship in this beautiful industry. The fact that there was not a gender-based analysis on this is striking.

I want to thank the seniors and those with chronic conditions who are scared about losing their access to these health products. When these organizations I mentioned before said that they are going to lose these products, I believe them. These seniors believe them, and these people with chronic conditions believe them. This is how they manage. This is how they cope with their ailments, and we should be enabling and empowering that, not scaring away investments, businesses and opportunities.

I want to thank the wonderful people in the industry. I want to thank the beautiful people I have met from coast to coast who are part of this industry. I have never met a group of people who are more conscientious, more thoughtful, and more creative and innovative. I want them to know that I am very thankful for the work they do.

For those who are going to be voting in favour of this, we are going to be voting on this next Wednesday night in a recorded division. I want to thank my colleagues for sending this to committee so that we can hear from the experts and from Canadians about this because this was snuck through in Bill C-47. The Liberal government is doing it again, right now, with Bill C-69 in this place. It is making even more changes to Health Canada and giving it more powers. Why are we not talking about this in a separate piece of legislation so that we can actually have a proper debate about it? Now we are, with Bill C-368.

It is time to pass Bill C-368. It is time to get back to basics. It is time to get back to making sure that Canadians have access to the health products they deserve. I want to thank my colleagues who are brave enough and who have the courage to do what their constituents want them to do, and vote for Bill C-368.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will return to the debate on the gag order for the Standing Committee on Health. I want to remind the Minister of Justice that he makes the same claim that the Minister of Health makes, which is that we need to quickly rush this through the process. This has been a promise that has been lingering for years from their side. There have only been three days of debate, April 16, May 6 and May 7, according to what I see in the House of Commons record. The proposed bill was tabled on February 29.

What the Liberals want, basically, is for the House of Commons and members of Parliament to ratify this, and we have already had a vote on it to send it to committee, without knowing the full contents of those secret negotiations that they had between the NDP and the Liberal minister. His claims were that there was enough talk, because those two parties had talked to each other; therefore, that should be sufficient for the rest of us, and that a potential five hours at committee, not necessarily five hours of witness testimony at the committee, is enough because that is what the programming motion says would happen.

Why does the minister want to gag order the committee so that it can only have five hours of witness testimony to hear about the contents and the impacts that the proposed legislation would have?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would just politely remind the member opposite to take a look at the text of the actual proposed programming motion. It talks about the committee meeting for five hours a day on two further sitting days, so that would be ten hours of hearings. There would be a third sitting day for actual clause-by-clause analysis. There has also already been ten hours of debate on this important bill. I think it is important for Canadians to understand why we believe this is important because Canadians should not have to choose between paying for their bills and paying for their health care.

We know that cost has consistently been identified as the single most important barrier to accessing medications and that cost is unevenly borne by women and gender-diverse Canadians; that is on the contraception piece. With respect to diabetes, one in four Canadians with diabetes has reported not following their treatment plan according to the cost and their inability to pay those costs.

That is significant because, as I said earlier in this debate, people with diabetes that goes untreated end up having more significant health care consequences, which include things like stroke and amputation. The knock-on health care costs to our system are very significant, let alone the hardships those people endure. Through this legislation, which we are putting an emphasis on passing quickly, we can improve the health care outcomes and the economic outcomes for those Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives were wrong in blocking dental care. We have seen the success already. The NDP put in place dental care, forced the government to initiate the program, and over two million seniors have already signed up. Over 100,000 seniors have already had access to dental care, including in so many Conservative ridings, so we have seen that success already.

With pharmacare, the NDP, the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus, pushed to put that into place. That would help, on average, 18,000 people in each riding in the country. That is 18,000 in every single Conservative riding. Another 25,000 would access contraception. That means between those two elements of the NDP's pharmacare plan, over 40,000 Canadians would benefit in every single riding in the country. In every single Conservative riding in the country, 40,000 people would benefit.

Why are Conservatives blocking something that would help 40,000 of their constituents, many of whom are at risk of their lives if they do not take the medication?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that I am not sure why the Conservatives would block access to health care and medication being covered for their own constituents, who include nine million women and 3.7 million people who are suffering from diabetes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I would ask for a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #769

Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, just to confirm, now that the motion has passed regarding Motion No. 39, I lose my unlimited time and I now have a 20-minute slot. Therefore, I will have to share my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, even though I would have enjoyed continuing to speak to an issue that I hold very dear to my heart, which is the approval of drugs for rare diseases in Canada and how patients can get access to them. Those two words actually only appear once in the legislation.

People with a rare disease are some of the most needy patients in Canada. As I said during the debate on Bill C-213 back in 2021, the hardest medication to get in Canada is the one that is not approved and not available because the manufacturer will say that Canada is too complicated, too difficult and it is not worth its time to try to get it onto our market. That is because of all the regulatory hurdles and steps that exist that make it very difficult for patients with rare diseases to get access to the drugs they need.

We saw this with cystic fibrosis drugs for patients who were trying to get access to Trikafta. It took many years from the time when it was available to patients in America to when it was available in Canada, and it was regulatory hurdles that made it much more difficult to do so.

Now that the government has passed this gag order on the gag order, it will direct the Standing Committee on Health on how it will consider the matter.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the debate on May 6, page 23051, where the Minister of Health responded to a question from the member for Berthier—Maskinongé about the timelines and why the Liberals were limiting debate. At the time, the minister said, “ there will be time for the committee to conduct a study.” I would put to members and constituents back home that a potential 10 hours of witness testimony at a committee is insufficient time to consider this pamphlet of a bill that the NDP-Liberal coalition is pretending is pharmacare. I have read the legislation in full, so I will comment on its contents as well.

The minister went on to say, “Yes, it is important to debate. However, there is plenty of time for debate in committee and during the rest of the House process. It is time to get on with it and move forward.” With this programming motion, the Liberals have essentially ordered the MPs on the committee to only consider it for a few more hours and then send it back here. In fact, after this bill has passed, there is now only one more day left for amendments to be considered. How can amendments be proposed without hearing from officials and witnesses who might bring forward amendments that would be of value to be considered by parliamentarians on that committee? It seems this is completely backward.

I want to comment on the issue of Conservatives delaying the bill, because this is a favourite talking point now of the Liberals and their colleagues in the NDP. I want the member for New Westminster—Burnaby to pay close attention to this. The bill was tabled on February 29. I would suggest that almost three and a half years into this mandate, this bill was not a priority of the government. Second of all, this bill was considered on April 16, May 6 and May 7, three days of consideration by the House of Commons. There were secret negotiations held between the Minister of Health, because he actually said it on the record, and whichever person on the NDP side who was negotiating so they could cobble together this particular piece of legislation.

I would put to members and my constituents back home, who deeply care about patients with rare diseases like I do, that there is nothing in this particular piece of legislation for them. It is not the job of the House of Commons or members of Parliament to simply ratify a secret deal reached between the Minister of Health and the NDP negotiator or negotiators. Our job is to debate, to bring forward ideas and potential amendments from expert witnesses, stakeholder groups and individuals back in our ridings who deeply care about this issue.

I will also mention that although Quebec has been mentioned several times, there is another province that has said openly it will not participate in this pamphlet of a pharmacare plan. It is Alberta, where I am from. Successive ministers of health have said they will not participate in it. One of the talking points I have heard is that we have a patchwork system right now in Canada. Saying “patchwork” is a way to kind of denigrate the hard work of the public servants in the different provinces in Canada who work for these public insurance plans. They are all over.

In fact, in Alberta, Blue Cross is available to anyone who wants it. There are lots of different public insurance plans. There are lots of public servants who work for them, and they work very hard to make sure they cover as many Albertans as possible. My province has said no and Quebec has said no, so we still have a patchwork. Even if this bill passes, even if it were to follow through on all the principles, the highfalutin language that I hear from the Liberals and the NDP on this, there will still be a patchwork in this country. We cannot force a province to participate.

As clause 6 of the pharmacare legislation clearly states, nobody's medication will be paid for. There are separate agreements that would have to be reached with each province. It says very clearly in subclause 6(1) of the pharmacare legislation, “in order to increase any existing public pharmacare coverage”. That would suggest that every single province has to either create or drastically expand a plan or successive series of plans that are single-payer, because that is one of the principles referred to again in that section.

If a province does not do that, it cannot negotiate a deal for future medication to be covered. No medication will get covered for either diabetes or contraceptives when this legislation passes. There will be none because no agreements have been signed yet. Alberta has said no, Quebec has said no, but the patchwork will continue.

I will move on to the legislation as I do want to mention this. Like I said before in a prior debate, there is a Yiddish proverb I used after listening to the minister's speech when he introduced Motion No. 39. He seems to think that pearls flow from his mouth because when I compared his speech at second reading on pharmacare, Bill C-64, and his speech on Motion No. 39, they were almost identical.

The minister actually used the exact same three anecdotes to make the case for why this plan is necessary. In the summary of the legislation, when the contents are reviewed, it gets into a lot of areas of provincial jurisdiction. This should be exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is starting to interfere with how the provinces manage their public health care plans.

I will mention here that nobody with a rare disease will be covered by this piece of legislation. Nobody will be covered, whether someone has phenylketonuria, PKU, whether someone has cystinosis and needs Cystagon, or whether someone has MS, which is, I would say, the most common rare disease in Canada. None of their medication will be covered. If someone's kids have a rare disease, or a family like mine has Alport's syndrome, none of their medication will be covered by this piece of legislation.

The “Funding commitment” in clause 5 reads, “beginning with those for rare diseases. The funding for provinces and territories must be provided primarily through agreements with their respective governments. Then it goes on to talk about “payments” in clause 6 and completely contradicts clause 5 because it says, “for specific prescription drugs and related products intended for contraception or the treatment of diabetes.” In fact, there will be no payment plan for anything else. There cannot be because this legislation will not do any of those things. Nobody with a rare disease will be covered once this legislation passes.

I have been, I hope, consistent in this place about rare disease patients for the past nine years. That is the focus of my opposition to national pharmacare because it will not help them. Like I said, the hardest medications to get in Canada are the ones that are not approved in Canada. All the changes the government has done to the Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health, CADTH, as well as all of the changes made to the Canadian Drug Agency, the PMPRB and the PCPA have been repetitive. The same mistakes are being repeated here.

The government says it is going to do bulk buying. Bulk buying is already done. It is done by the provinces through the PCPA. The government has an agreement for generics as well, which are not covered in this particular piece of legislation. There is no direct reference to generics. There is no direct reference to patented medication. It does not talk about those things. It takes years to get those drugs approved in Canada.

I would put to members and my constituents back home, who have emailed me because they are all so worried about this, that this is a pamphlet of legislation. The substance will be in the agreements that may come in the future. There are already two provinces that have backed out and other provinces are considering doing the same. Why is it that, since 2019, when the government announced it was going to fund drugs for rare diseases at $1.5 billion, it has done nothing? Not a single medication prescription has been filled for anyone I know with a rare disease in Canada. That money is just sitting there. The government has only started to put out RFPs to consider creating registries for rare disease patients. Registries, not medication. Most of the money remains unspent. The government has not done anything. That is the same thing that will happen here: a series of broken promises, unkept promises. The Liberals are being helped by the NDP to do this, giving people false hope.

I tell people who enter my office that the last thing I want to do is give false hope. I have two serious rare diseases in my family. Families who have rare diseases like mine cannot wait for the government to get its act together again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing just how the Conservative Party does not get it. We are talking about millions of Canadians who will directly benefit from the passage of this legislation. The member wonders why it is that we have to bring in some form of a closure motion. The member himself is the one who started the debate. He has already been debating it now for well over a half hour. It is because the Conservatives do not support pharmacare, unlike the Liberal Party that understands its true value. Millions of Canadians are going to benefit by this program.

Can the member be very clear and explain to his constituents, to Canadians, why the Conservative Party does not see the benefits of supporting people who have diabetes? Think of the seniors on fixed incomes. Why does the Conservative Party not support pharmacare?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, if my constituents or members of this House look at my speaking time in this chamber and compare it to that member's speaking time on government bills, they will see that he has delayed more government bills than any Conservative in this House.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague on one thing, and that is about the member for Winnipeg North. I do not agree with him, however, on the reasons why the Bloc Québécois opposes the pharmacare plan. We oppose it because it directly interferes in Quebec's jurisdictions.

I would like to point something out to my colleague, because he spoke at length about rare diseases. In the early 2000s, there were seven major pharmaceutical companies doing research in Canada, six of which were based in Quebec. There was a program at the time that gave them access to tax credits. If I remember correctly, it was called technology partnerships Canada.

The government that shut it down was Stephen Harper's in 2007. In hindsight, does my colleague think that was a bad idea?