Debates of Nov. 17th, 2025

Food and Drugs Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

moved that Bill C-224, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to rise for the second Parliament in a row to present a bill to restore the traditional definition of natural health products.

Canadians watching at home might recall that back in the last Parliament, in 2023, the Trudeau government of the day introduced Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, which redefined natural health products. Basically, they had a stand-alone regulatory body that had its own regulations and legislation. The government of the day changed that to make natural health products regulated the same way as therapeutic drugs, which has meant that all the processes Health Canada uses to pre-approve sites and pre-approve natural health products are now the same as those for therapeutic drugs.

This has meant that getting something as simple as a vitamin B complex to the marketplace is just as complicated and potentially as convoluted as getting a new cancer treatment drug to the marketplace. Of course, the government's intention through Bill C-47's change to the definition was to do cost recovery on the natural health product industry the same way that it is done in the pharmaceutical industry. Given that big pharmaceutical industries have billions of dollars of research and development funds and have a completely regulated allopathic health care system, natural health products cannot compete in that space.

We will talk more about that red tape, but I just want to be clear with Canadians that there was no consultation at the time that Bill C-47 was brought in. As a matter of fact, there was no debate. I could not find anything the government said at the time about natural health products. They were just tucked into the massive omnibus budget implementation act. The Natural Health Products Protection Association had no idea. The Canadian Health Food Association had no idea. The Direct Sellers Association of Canada had no idea. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business did not know. This plan was hatched in a back room, where Health Canada officials, I am assuming, basically duped the minister of the day, Mark Holland, into putting this into the budget implementation act.

It created a firestorm of activity. Parliamentarians who were here in the last Parliament will remember the various campaigns that were initiated by Canadians across the country, whether it is the Natural Health Products Protection Association's campaign or the Canadian Health Food Association's “Save Our Supplements” campaign. I have a stack of cards from concerned Canadians in my office, as I think the Speaker does as well, that is at least two feet high.

Canada's Parliament is supreme in this matter, and that should not be overlooked by Health Canada officials who want to have their way all the time when Canadians are concerned. Our job as parliamentarians is to make sure that the laws and regulations thereunder reflect what Canadians' wishes are. Overwhelmingly, Parliament has been told time and time again by Canadians, whether they are involved in the business directly or are consumers, that they do not want their government to treat natural health products like they are therapeutic drugs. They want the traditional definition restored.

If we go back to 1998, there were 53 recommendations in the health committee report suggesting that natural health products be regulated, classified and categorized on their own. There was opposition when an attempt was made to change the law in 2014 by the creation of Vanessa's Law. The thought was that Health Canada could sneak health products in under the Vanessa's Law rubric.

There was push-back on that at that particular point in time, which led to massive industry consultation with Canadians. Of course, natural health products have been regulated on their own since that time in 2014-15. This actually created an opportunity, because of the consultations of the previous Harper government, for the natural health products industry to flourish and become the gold standard, or at least it was the gold standard for a number of years, until Bill C-47 was passed.

The bill in the previous Parliament was Bill C-368. It is now Bill C-224. I just want to say how important it is that Canadians understand that if the bill does not pass, Health Canada will have the power to regulate natural health products as if they are therapeutic drugs. We need to undo that. It is a cash grab by Health Canada, to basically charge the fees that it wants to charge. It was called the self-care framework for a time. This would massively increase the cost of creating a site licence and it would also massively increase the cost of getting a product to market.

Prior to Bill C-47, Canada was an icon and had the highest standard of regulations for natural health products globally. The International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations, IADSA, in its written submission at committee on Bill C-368 in the previous Parliament, said:

Up to now, Canada has been a world leader in the regulation of dietary supplements. We fear that the proposed changes to Canada's regulatory framework for natural health products risk creating an environment that could stifle the industry and limit Canadians' access to high-quality supplements.

IADSA has always promoted the Canadian model as a global reference point for governments across the world who are creating or redeveloping their regulatory systems. This Canadian model is recognized as providing consumers access to products which are safe and beneficial while fostering innovation and supporting investment in the sector.

That is the same shape the Harper administration left the natural health products industry in. There are precisely the same challenges with the changes proposed in Bill C-47. It has undone all of that good work and created uncertainty in this environment.

Our brand is very reputable, or at least it was. For products, manufacturers and distributors across the world, if a product had a natural product number and the made-in-Canada symbol on the label, it was trusted pretty much globally. A natural health product sold around the world that was developed, processed and regulated in Canada was trusted to be safe. The contents in the bottle matched the contents on the label or matched the labelling requirements. That was our reputation, but that is not the case anymore.

The changes that have been proposed under Bill C-47 and the self-care framework are basically going to create licence fees that would stop or wipe out a lot of manufacturers. This is for traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda medicine, homeopathy and so on. This is very concerning because 80% of Canadians use these products.

The cost-recovery framework that was proposed would have new product fees of up to $4,000 per product. If we look at traditional Chinese medicine, the ingredients are combined to get a very select remedy for clients. If a fee had to be paid every time the ingredients were combined to make a traditional Chinese medicine product, that would make it virtually impossible for traditional Chinese medicine practitioners to be effective and sell their products at a price point that users of traditional Chinese medicine could afford. It would wipe out traditional Chinese medicine.

This would have a huge impact on our economy at a time when job numbers are not necessarily great. There are 54,000 direct employees in Canada who are working in this space. If we were to lose a wide swath of traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine and all of these things, it would be a tremendous loss to our economy.

I want to be clear that this was done under the previous Trudeau administration. Gender-based analysis was a big issue for the previous administration, but when this change was imposed, there was no gender-based analysis done on the impacts of changing the traditional definition of therapeutic products in Bill C-47.

Over 80% of natural health products consumers are women, while 90% of practitioners are women. Over 50% of the micro-businesses are female- or women-owned, and 84% of direct sellers are women. That is what the impact would be on the Canadian economy if we continue down this road of making the natural health products space uncompetitive. We would lose businesses in Canada.

Let me remind people where the starting point was. We were already the best regulated environment in the world. We did not need to do any of this in Bill C-47. We were the safest already. Over 80% of Canadians use natural health products. There were several audits done by the industry, by Deloitte and so on, that basically debunked all of the claims that Health Canada was making to justify what it was doing. It claimed it was for consumer protection, but the reality is that very few people, in any way, shape or form, are harmed by natural health products.

Where are we? We have more red tape, more costs and less choice for consumers. We are also in an environment right now where, south of the border, there are several states, such as Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, South Carolina and Nevada, that are actively using tax incentives to draw health businesses into their areas of responsibility. In Canada, we have a 90-day personal use import system where anybody can order online and have their natural health products brought in from a non-Canadian jurisdiction with the same level of regulatory framework. Regulatory checks and pre-market approvals for sites and products all happen in Canada. That is why we have the gold standard when it comes to regulations.

That is not what our main competitor in the United States does at all. It has a post-market regulatory framework, which means that anybody who has a business in Canada and who is looking at the uncompetitive environment, and most of these business people are women, would be looking at the United States, saying that they could move their business down there, start manufacturing, have a tax incentive to do so and still ship to Canada. They would not have to deal with any of the burdens and red tape of pre-market approvals for a site or a product, and simply have some post-market regulations in the United States, but still ship to Canada without even any tariffs on those personal-use imports.

This is the environment we are facing here in Canada. It is one we should be very concerned about. We should be making sure that we do not overburden the Canadian space, because this market is worth $5.5 billion in products every year. That is over $200 million just in GST alone, and the cost of the natural health products directorate is only $50 million a year. This industry pays for itself in spades, and we are not even talking about the health benefits for Canadians, which keep them out of the allopathic health care system, or the regulated health care system, that we have here in Canada.

Really, it comes down to choice. Consumers want to be able to take care of themselves. Mothers want to take care of their families and their children. People are looking for alternative health care measures all of the time when the regular health care system is not providing them any relief.

Anybody who says that Health Canada does not have enough power right now is simply missing the point. As a matter of fact, the Auditor General has said that Health Canada was not already using the powers it had pre-Bill C-47. With its current powers, it can stop the sale of any natural health product it wants.

Health Canada has border powers for personal-use imports. If it chooses to change the regulations or do more to keep Canadians safe from health products that are coming in from offshore, it can do so. It can seize any product any time it wants. It can revoke a site licence from a manufacturer, a packager, a labeller or an importer any time it wants. It can mandate a label change, for example, to add a warning, to any of the manufacturers here in Canada. It can inspect any place that has a site licence any time it wants. It has already done so. It is called good manufacturing practices. It has that ability to do so. It can inspect any product off the shelf by sending it to a lab, doing an analysis and making sure the contents in the bottle match the contents on the label. It can revoke a natural product number.

These are the massive, sweeping powers that Health Canada already had prior to Bill C-47, so the arguments that Health Canada is using, that it needs massive new powers to keep Canadians safe, simply do not hold water.

I also want to expand on the fact that health products are now being regulated as therapeutic products, so the fine structures for therapeutic products now apply to health products. Some of these fines can be up to $5 million a day for non-compliance. This makes sense for a large global therapeutic or biomedical company, but it does not make sense for a mom-and-pop shop that is trying to create some new natural remedies or a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.

This is a ridiculous change that simply did not need to happen. It puts a chill in the industry and a chill in investment. Nobody wants to operate or take any risks in that particular structure.

In closing, I want to thank Canadians from coast to coast who have written to parliamentarians and who have put pressure on their MPs. I will just advise them that they need to continue to do that because there will be a vote on this. I know that we need to make the changes to get natural health products back to their traditional definition and classification. We need colleagues to get this bill to committee so that we can go through it again.

I urge everybody to listen to Canadians. It is time to have some true consultation on this process. I want to thank all of the industry association reps, Natural Health Product Protection Association, the Canadian Health Food Association and everybody else who has lobbied so hard to protect these vital, important businesses and this vital, important space for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the member opposite because I do not think he is being fully transparent about the issue.

There are many Canadians who have a genuine concern about the issue of contamination. Does the member believe that there are no concerns related to contamination and that Canadians have nothing to be concerned about with this issue? After all, we have seen Health Canada issue recalls in certain situations. Does the member believe Health Canada plays no role in this? To what degree does the member see the value of providing Canadians assurances through Health Canada that the products they are consuming are safe?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess I reject the premise of the question. I never said that Health Canada did not have a role to play.

As a matter of fact, had the member been listening to my speech, he would have heard me say that Health Canada, prior to Bill C-47, had the power to stop any sale of any natural health product that is regulated in this country. That product cannot be sold as a natural health product until it has a natural product number, which means that natural health products have to be pre-approved. Nothing can happen post-market access. Everything is approved before it even gets to the market.

Health Canada has border powers for personal-use imports. It has seizure powers to seize a product that it thinks might be unsafe. It can revoke a site licence for a manufacturer, a packager, a labeller or an importer. It can mandate any label change if it is concerned about the contents inside the bottle not matching what is on the label. It can inspect any site to look for contamination issues all it wants. It can even stop that site from continuing to produce things.

The hon. member's question seems to indicate that there are no authorities and powers right now, but nothing could be further from the truth.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that Bill C-224 is basically the same as Bill C-368, which was scrapped when the election was called. The Bloc Québécois had made amendments to Bill C‑368 to strike a balance between people's concern for their safety and the need to avoid destroying an industry.

Could my colleague give me a clear answer this morning about whether he will support our amendments, like he did the last time when all the parties agreed to our amendments?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support of the bill in the last Parliament and for his thoughtful analysis. The member was very thoughtful in his deliberations and his approach to dealing with Bill C-368. He will note that the bill is not exactly the same. One of the amendments that was put forward at the committee stage the last time dealt with exempting nicotine, so I included that through the definition in this particular bill, but there are other amendments that my colleague would likely bring back to the committee.

The member does not need my permission to do that, so I would encourage my colleague to actually talk to the industry associations and Canadians who might have had some concerns with the amendments that he brought forward, and make sure he gets them on side.

At this particular point, the bill that I have tabled before the House belongs to the House. I want to get it passed here at second reading, and the place for those amendments to be proposed is at committee, but the member does not need my permission to do it. He should ask Canadians and the industry associations that represent them whether they agree with the wording and the nuances of the wording that were in those amendments. In principle, I support the amendments that he put forward in the last Parliament.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I presented petition e-4474 on this matter, with 15,000 signatures from across Canada of individuals who were concerned with the new changes to natural health products. These changes would really impact a lot of our small and medium-sized businesses that provide natural health products. In Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, we have areas where a lot of people are proactive with their health care and are using natural health products.

The member gave an awesome presentation of the bill. I think we are going to have success with this across Canada.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, and I thank him and all my colleagues here in the Conservative benches for the support of the bill. I want to thank my colleagues from the NDP, Green Party and the Bloc Québécois who supported the bill in the last Parliament, and I look forward to their continued support and their constructive feedback.

I am also looking forward to making sure that we get back to the traditional definition of natural health products. That is what Canadians want. That is what they elected us to do. Let us do it.

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

Madam Speaker, before I get to the debate on Bill C-224, I just want to make quick reference to something that embodies a great deal of national pride from coast to coast to coast here in Canada: the Grey Cup.

We had a wonderful celebration in the city of Winnipeg, hosting the Montreal Alouettes along with the Saskatchewan Roughriders. Canadians were entertained by a first-class football game. I know that my colleague and good friend from northern Saskatchewan is a big Riders fan and was very pleased with the outcome, but I think it is safe to say that all football fans got to be entertained with a first-class Canadian football game.

We congratulate the city of Winnipeg, the residents and the organizers, from the commissioner all the way down to the volunteers, on having a very successful 112th Grey Cup, and we look forward to Grey Cup 2026, which I think will stay in the Prairies. I believe it will go to Calgary, followed by Regina.

I just wanted to acknowledge that right at the get-go.

I appreciate what the member is trying to bring forward in the form of a private member's bill. When I think of natural health products, I think of two aspects. One is the consumer, and there is absolutely no doubt that Canadians all over our country actually participate in the consumption of natural health products. They are very widely used. I have visited stores to look at ways I can improve my health. At age 63, maybe it is more of an interest; I am not 100% sure, but I do see the value of natural health products, and I also recognize the size and magnitude of the industry.

It is an industry that has provided jobs for Canadians. It has provided all sorts of opportunities for Canadians. I do not question the value of that industry, and hopefully it will continue to grow. I do not think there is anyone within the Liberal caucus who wants to prevent the industry from growing. The more growth we see within that industry, quite frankly, the better it is, but I also believe at the same time that the Conservatives need to take into consideration the well-being, health and safety of Canadians in general, because not all items they are referencing are actually produced here in Canada.

I take a great sense of pride in the work that Health Canada does for our nation. On a wide variety of products, it plays an incredibly important role. In some areas, I do believe there is an opportunity and in fact a need for us to actually look at ways in which Health Canada might even be able to strengthen our industry. Having more oversight is ultimately good for the industry, and when I reflect on Bill C-47, what I see is legislation that ensured that there would be more oversight of an industry that is really important to Canada.

When we talk about how we can grow our economy, we often talk about the benefits of being able to export. The member made reference to the importance of the maple leaf, and I agree with him on that part. A government-sanctioned maple leaf on a product carries a great deal of weight, not only here in Canada but also beyond our borders, and that is something we collectively should want to protect to ensure that its value is always held to the nth degree.

Among the industries around the world, we find the pharmaceutical and natural health product industries. The potential for growth in those industries is tremendous, and that is why I understand that there is some resistance even from within, in terms of Health Canada and the oversight issue. However, I truly believe that Health Canada's providing additional oversight, which was enabled through Bill C-47, puts Canada once again on a higher platform for us to be able to export products, and I am very much interested in exports because I believe that the market potential is great.

About a year ago, I was in the Philippines at a grocery store that was unique in that it was profiling Canadian products. It was quite encouraging to see the number of Canadian products being sold in Manila at a grocery store. When I was talking with the manager of the grocery store, he indicated that they could not get enough of the products coming from Canada, because the products from Canada were being so well received.

This is the type of thing that, I believe, we undersell, and I think there is so much more potential, and that is the reason the Prime Minister of Canada is today looking to the export markets of Asia and Europe, going beyond the United States border, which I see as a positive thing. When we think in terms of the natural health products and the industry we have here in Canada, there is a great deal of merit in asking whether there is a role that Health Canada plays, through the branding of our maple leaf, to actually advance the industry. I believe the answer to that is yes, which is why Bill C-47 had an important role.

I pose this question to the member opposite: What about the consumer? We know for a fact that Health Canada has issued recalls on some items that have been tainted. To what degree would the member be prepared to answer on that specific issue? I would argue that with the additional oversight, ultimately issues of recall, or contamination, if I can put it that way, would not happen, and we would be able to provide the consumer with much more of a guarantee for the product they are consuming.

More and more what I have found, especially in our younger generation, is that people are looking at ways to stay healthy. They are looking at options, which is something that again speaks positively about an industry we are all concerned about. If we can reinforce confidence by having Health Canada provide extra oversight, I see that as a positive thing, and it is what we should be looking at in the legislation. How would the legislation reinforce confidence in natural health products? If anything, I would argue, it would take away from the level of confidence.

There is a responsibility for the official opposition to be more transparent. Yes, of course there are some things Health Canada can do, just like the Canada Border Services Agency can do some things. We recognize that, but I would suggest that members opposite also need to recognize that this is a very real issue and that the opportunities within the industry can in fact be enhanced by having more oversight.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, rarely have I heard a speech showing such ignorance about an issue and a bill.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau]

It is embarrassing.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is really embarrassing. Obviously, the member has not read the natural health products regulations. The member said that Bill C-47 gives more powers, when all of that is already set out in the regulations, which are quite lengthy. I read them all so that I could introduce the amendments that I mentioned earlier.

The member clearly also did not read the Food and Drugs Act or Vanessa's Law. Had he read those pieces of legislation, he would not have given the speech that he just gave. He made sweeping generalizations about how we want to promote an irresponsible industry.

Will the member apologize for not being able to give a speech that addresses the problem? He should have remained seated rather than standing up and spouting nonsense.

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

This is not a question and comment period. We have resumed debate.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is the second time that has happened to me.

I know I need to calm down, but speeches like that make no sense. I worked full-time for over two weeks with legal experts to come up with three small amendments. The member for Ponoka—Didsbury made it clear that the first amendment has been incorporated into Bill C‑224, but there were two others. These two other amendments addressed the concerns raised by some stakeholders, particularly Health Canada.

Do members know what the Auditor General's report revealed? It revealed that, since 2014, Health Canada has been unable to enforce its natural health products regulations. That is what it revealed. The Auditor General analyzed 75 of the industry's 91,000 natural health products. The Auditor General knew that these 75 products were already problematic and wanted to be able to tell Health Canada to do its job. In a panic, Health Canada decided to use an omnibus bill to introduce Bill C‑47 in an appendix. This bill purportedly championed consumer safety, but it threatened to kill an industry.

Consumers must be able to make free and informed choices, but there must be products available for them to make free and informed choices about. When we talk about natural health products, we are not talking about large multinationals. We are talking about small and medium-sized businesses.

Having cost-recovery provisions that allow the work to get done properly is not a problem. The problem is that Health Canada went for the simplest solution possible. It took the cost recovery and penalties model that it uses for pharmaceuticals and applied it to natural health products. Need I remind the House that the pharmaceutical industry has 20-year patents? The same cannot be said of the natural health products industry. Need I also remind the House that there are no taxes on pharmaceutical products, unlike natural health products? The government takes in enough money to pay for a proper oversight system.

This is what shocks me the most. I did my job, and I have kept in touch with all the groups. The industry is not at all resistant to change. What it wants is a system that allows it to survive over the long term. However, it also wants to rid its system of bad actors. The natural health products regulations were supposed to be ironclad.

We decided that we needed to go a step further. First, nicotine must be kept within the therapeutic products category. All nicotine-based products are therapies for quitting smoking. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. That is what we did with the first amendment. That was also what the government and the minister at the time wanted. We presented that.

In the second Bloc Québécois amendment, we ensured that the minister would have the power to order a recall, even though he has all the powers under the regulations. Need I remind members that recalls were voluntary? There have never been any alarming cases of people being resistant to recalls. We protected the minister's right to order recalls, which was already provided for under the regulations.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask members on the other side to please take their conversations to the lobby.

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

I would like to ask hon. members not to have conversations while someone else is giving a speech.

The hon. member for Montcalm may continue his speech.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

In line with what I was saying earlier, the third amendment sought to prevent a model involving fines from being inappropriately applied to small and medium-sized businesses.

We wanted to ensure the industry was safe while guaranteeing its long-term survival and preserving consumers' freedom to choose between a natural health product and a pharmaceutical product, or sometimes both. Just because Health Canada was not able to do its job, that does not mean that an entire industry should be destroyed. That is the crux of the issue.

When Bill C-368 was being studied at committee, we managed to come to an agreement. The Liberals were reluctant at first, but they eventually came around. Many of them supported the opposition parties' approach. The NDP members completely agreed, and so did the Liberals, to some extent. When a member is part of the government, it is hard for them to repudiate an initiative that comes from one of the most important government institutions, namely Health Canada, and its minister, who was probably misled.

It is worth noting that ministers come and go, but senior public servants stay. At some point, it will be important to examine who really holds power within the government. I think it is time to start thinking about the power of the administration, which is not accountable to anyone and is not sitting on an ejection seat.

Mistakes were made, things moved too quickly, an attempt was made to hide something that looked good on camera, namely tightening the rules. If Health Canada is unable to enforce the rules, then why did it go from saying that 91% of natural health product companies were compliant in 2015 to suddenly claiming that 88% are no longer compliant? Well, that 88% refers to the 75 companies that we knew were problematic and that had been flagged as examples so that Health Canada could be asked why it was not doing its job.

The industry wants criteria. What criteria will be used during visits and inspections? I have talked to everyone in the industry, and it is obvious that they want clear rules and enforcement of regulations. That is why I am not asking my colleague who introduced this bill for permission to table my amendments. I am just surprised that all the work done in committee, which everyone agreed on, was not included in Bill C-224. If it had been, we could have fast-tracked this bill rather than rehash all the meetings. It should be noted that, as a result of our work, Health Canada had already begun to make concessions, particularly on labelling and cost recovery.

However, the government seems to want to go backwards, claiming that Bill C‑224 is no good and that Bill C‑47 is the bill that matters. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told us this morning. That is shameful.

Notice of Motion

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), on behalf of the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, I would like to table, in both official languages, a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, and other measures.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of this ways and means motion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-224, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Food and Drugs Act

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, when hundreds of thousands speak out through petitions, letters and social media, it is clear they want action, and when so many speak with such clarity and consistency, we owe it to them to listen.

For months and years, Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been raising the alarm about the government's heavy-handed approach to natural health products. Whether vitamins, probiotics, protein powders or herbal supplements, these are products that millions of people use safely, responsibly and by choice every single day.

I am sure every member of Parliament in this chamber has heard about this issue. I know I have. I have read letters, answered emails and had conversations at the doorstep and grocery store. People across this country are deeply worried that their freedom to make their own health care choices is being eroded, and they are right to be concerned. At its core, this debate is not just about vitamins or supplements; it is about choice, practical solutions, balance and setting rules based on evidence.

People expect policies that protect them without punishing responsible decisions. Over-regulation does not make anyone safer; it just makes life harder. Without debate, Bill C-47 was introduced with no consideration for consumers. We need proportionate, evidence-based standards that keep products safe without burying businesses in red tape. It is about respecting personal responsibility and limiting unnecessary government interference.

This is why I am proud to stand today in full support of my colleague, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, and to second his private member's bill, Bill C-224. He has shown real leadership in working with Canadians across the country to craft a thoughtful, practical response to the government's overreach.

Natural health products are not obscure or uncommon; they are a trusted part of everyday life for millions of Canadians. Seniors rely on vitamins and probiotics to maintain their energy and independence; parents give their children supplements to help support healthy growth and immune systems. Athletes and fitness enthusiasts depend on protein powders and electrolytes to train safely, and many Canadians who live with chronic conditions use natural products as part of an integrated, preventative approach to their well-being.

It does not stop there. These products are also at the heart of a thriving Canadian industry made up of small business owners, holistic practitioners, local health food stores, nutritionists and fitness professionals. These are people who pour their time, savings and passion into helping others live healthier lives. They also create jobs, keep money in our communities and strengthen the local economy, including in Cambridge and North Dumfries.

Let us not forget the ripple effect. When these businesses thrive, they support farmers, suppliers and manufacturers across Canada. They contribute to innovation in wellness and preventive care, areas that reduce strain on our public health system. Undermining them hurts not only small shops but also the Canadian economy. These are good people doing good work, and they deserve a government that treats them as partners in health, not as problems to be managed.

This is why the Liberal government's Bill C-47 was such a serious blow. Hidden deep in that omnibus legislation were new powers and new regulations that would effectively smother this industry under layers of red tape, with more bureaucracy, more fees and more Ottawa gatekeepers. It would have given Health Canada a sweeping new authority over how natural health products are manufactured, labelled and sold. This would drive small businesses into the ground and push safe, trusted products right off Canadian shelves. The result would be fewer choices for consumers, higher costs and a less competitive marketplace, all in the name of control.

Let us be honest: This was not an isolated decision. It fits a clear and troubling pattern from the government that sees it centralizing power, limiting choice and distrusting Canadians' making their own decisions. We saw it when, during the lockdown, the Liberals imposed unjustified, unscientific mandates that divided Canadians and punished people for making personal health decisions; when they forced charities and faith groups to sign on to ideological commitments, binding agreements, to access government programs that should have been open to all; and again when they tried to give themselves unchecked spending power while shutting down Parliament, leaving no mechanism for accountability or oversight. We see it today, as they continue to govern through bloated budgets and endless bureaucracies, concentrating decisions in Ottawa instead of trusting Canadians and their communities.

It is the same story every time: more power for the government, less freedom for the people. Well, Bill C-224 is about reversing that trend. It is about putting power back where it belongs: in the hands of Canadians. It is about respecting the right of individuals to make their own decisions on health and the right of small businesses to operate without being crushed by excessive regulation.

The bill would restore a sensible framework that helps keep products safe and maintains consumer protections but gets the government out of the way of ordinary Canadians, who just want to live healthy, independent lives. It is not radical; it is reasonable and practical, and Canadians know it. I have heard from hundreds of them in my community alone.

Sophie from Cambridge wrote to me recently. She said, “How can it be that natural health manufacturers and practitioners can now be destroyed for providing Canadians with vital nutrients essential for health? Our laws are now adversarial against the citizen.” She went on to say, “The severe fines in the therapeutic product provisions may be pocket change for large pharmaceutical companies, but they are excessive for natural health practitioners and natural health companies.” She is right. These are not multinational corporations with billion-dollar legal departments; they are small, family-run businesses with razor-thin margins trying to do the right thing for their customers and their communities.

One local owner of a health food store shared this with me: “These new rules from Bill C-47 are burying small shops like mine in red tape and extra fees. It's getting so expensive that we may have to pull good products off our shelves, and some businesses might not survive it. Customers will end up buying from sketchy online markets because they won't find what they need here at home. That's why we helped gather signatures for the petition and why we support Bill C-224—it brings back the old system that worked, protects small businesses, and keeps natural health products affordable and available for Canadians.”

Another neighbour from North Dumfries told me, “I use natural health products every day for my wellness, but the new rules are making them harder to access. Some of what I depend on is gone or too costly now. Bill C-224 would make sure Canadians like me can still afford the products that help us stay healthy.”

These are not isolated voices. More than 135,000 Canadians have signed the charter of health freedom petition, and tens of thousands more have submitted official House of Commons petitions.

They are just asking us to listen. They are not asking for a handout. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for the right to make their own choices, to access the products they rely on and to be treated as responsible people capable of managing their own health. This is not too much to ask. In fact, it is the least a free country should expect, yet the government continues to ignore them, to ignore the evidence and the lived experience of millions of Canadians.

It has been said that if we do not have our health, we do not have anything. That is what this debate is about. It is about whether we trust Canadians to make choices for themselves, whether we believe in empowerment or control, whether we believe in freedom or bureaucracy. I know where I stand. I stand with the Canadians, from small business owners to parents, seniors and athletes, who rely on these supplements to stay healthy and independent.

Bill C-224 is a chance for Parliament to get this right, to fix what the government broke, to restore trust and to reaffirm that the people we serve know what is best for themselves. Let us do the right thing. Together, we can support the Canadians who have spoken out, protect small businesses and defend the freedom to make personal health choices. This is not about partisanship; it is about principle. It is about whether or not we trust Canadians to make decisions for themselves.

Bill C-224 gives the House a chance to act for choice and fairness. Let us pass Bill C-224, and let us save our natural health products, protect our entrepreneurs and restore balance and practicality to Canadian health policy.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-224 this morning.

This is an important bill that would impact millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products as part of their daily health and wellness routines and want to know that the products they are using and consuming are safe. Unfortunately, the bill as it is currently written would make it harder for Canadians to trust the safety and quality of their natural health products, and it would make it harder to make sure that harmful products could be taken off the shelf. However, even with those flaws, I think we can all agree that this bill has some ideas worth exploring.

One of our new government's top priorities was to remove burdensome red tape and regulations. We have seen this promise in action in the natural health products sector. Our government heard from natural health product companies that some of the regulatory burdens added by the previous government were too onerous or did not do what they set out to do, so we paused some of those regulations and limited the scope of others.

Canada's natural health products industry is a huge part of our economy, and we want to make sure that these companies can thrive. We also want to make sure that Canadians can trust that the natural health products they rely on are safe and that what is on the label is actually what is in them. After all, the term “natural health products” encompasses all sorts of things. It includes vitamins, minerals and supplements, but it can also include products like sunscreen, deodorant and toothpaste. It even includes products that contain addictive substances, like nicotine in the form of nicotine replacement therapies. In other words, there is a wide range of products.

We need only look at the Health Canada recall page to see that sometimes, mistakes are made. There can be mislabelled products or undeclared ingredients. In one extreme case last year, a range of multivitamins and supplements had to be recalled across Canada because they contained metal fibres. These recalls are rare, but they show that even seemingly safe products that are authorized and widely used can still have some risks.

Having this oversight in place, with food and drug safety regulations that ensure that the products on store shelves are safe, effective and of high quality, helps Canadian consumers and Canadian companies alike. These regulations build trust and confidence in the system. Consumers trust that the products on store shelves are what they say they are, while businesses get to operate on a level playing field. This oversight also makes Canada a more attractive destination for companies looking to expand, because they know we have a regulatory system in place that maintains some of the highest food and drug safety standards in the world.

It is important to note that in its current form, Bill C-224 would undo many of these regulations. In trying to lessen the regulatory burden on natural health product companies, it could open the door to companies that do not have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

Under the current laws and regulations, the Minister of Health has a number of important powers. They can order a product recall. They can require changes to labels or packaging. They can request additional information about a product when they suspect that it poses a serious risk to human health. They can also issue fines against companies that refuse to take unsafe products off the shelves. These are all important tools to protect consumers, and Bill C-224 would get rid of them.

I do not think that was the goal of Bill C-224. The bill's sponsor, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, has been very passionate about this. He has been an advocate for natural health products going back to the previous Parliament, when he introduced the forerunner of this bill, Bill C-368, which had many of the same provisions. I will pause here to note that one important difference between Bill C-368 and Bill C-224 is that Bill C-224 does not exempt nicotine products from the Food and Drugs Act, which is a significant improvement.

Both bills are understandable attempts to help natural health product companies continue to grow and thrive. This is a goal that all of us in this House share. It is certainly a goal of our new government. It is why we have been working closely with natural health products industry stakeholders as part of our red tape review to streamline and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Thanks to the red tape review, Health Canada is shifting to a risk-based approach to oversight that will reduce premarket requirements for natural health products, while shifting direct oversight and resources to higher-risk areas. It has also put a pause on new labelling requirements and continues to work with natural health product companies to address their concerns.

We recognize that a key part of working with the natural health products industry is flexibility. We cannot apply a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach. One of the important pieces of legislation passed by the previous government was Bill C-69, which gave the Minister of Health the flexibility to respond to urgent and emerging regulatory challenges as they arise, with tailored solutions. In a world where both industry and the government are constantly facing evolving challenges, this kind of flexibility is essential. This important work needs to continue, and I think there is room within Bill C-224 to allow it to continue.

We also need to make sure that there are rules and regulations in place to protect Canadian consumers. When Canadians reach for products on store shelves, they need to have confidence in their safety and trust that the labels accurately represent the products. If they do not have that confidence and they cannot trust the products they are buying, it will hurt the entire natural health products industry and, by extension, our economy.

There is an important balance that we need to find. I have heard that word a lot in the debate today, and I hope we can find it in this bill at the committee stage. Let us make sure that it strikes the right balance to ensure that Canadians can have peace of mind when it comes to the products they buy and that Canadian natural health product companies have the tools they need to grow and thrive.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Montcalm for all the extremely important work he has done for the health and safety of consumers, as well as for the time he has dedicated to this issue over the past few Parliaments.

We all know people who work in small and medium-sized businesses in the natural health care sector. In Val‑David, in my riding, I visited the facilities of Clef des Champs, a company that has been around since 1978. The first thing the people from that organization told me was that they had imposed some criteria and that Health Canada was technically failing to do its job by not imposing the same criteria.

We hope that the bill will be amended so it can help all businesses continue their work.

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

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle will have eight minutes and 50 seconds to continue her speech when the House resumes consideration of this bill.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Budget Documents Distributed to Members

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on November 5 by the member for Joliette—Manawan respecting the budget documents distributed during the budget lock-up and for the budget presentation in the House. The member alleges that the physical budget documents distributed in the lock-up and in the House did not contain all of the information contained in the budget that was tabled on November 4 by the hon. Minister of Finance and National Revenue.

I can confirm to this House that the budget documents that were tabled by the Minister of Finance in the House at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 4, were complete and contained all required information. These documents represent the official documents relating to the 2025 budget. With respect to the budget lock-up, there are many Speakers' rulings that substantiate that these venues are not proceedings of Parliament and are offered to parliamentarians as a courtesy to assist parliamentarians in preparation for the budget debate.

On March 6, 1997, on matters related to budget secrecy, the availability of budget documents and the budget lock-up, Speaker Parent ruled:

On the issue of budget secrecy, perhaps it would be helpful to remind all members of what Speaker Sauvé pointed out in a decision she gave to the House on April 19, 1983 at page 24649 of the Debates:

-budget secrecy is a political convention. So also is the practice whereby the minister presents his budget in the House before declaring it in any other public forum.

I agree with Speaker Sauvé. It would not be proper for the Chair to get involved in the interpretation of budget secrecy, nor the matter of the lock-up.

As for the issue of privilege...let me quote again Speaker Sauvé. In a decision which can be found in the Debates of November 18, 1981 at page 12898 she stated that:

-a breach of budget secrecy cannot be dealt with as a matter of privilege.

With respect to the assertion of the member for Joliette—Manawan that the budget he was provided with in the House was not complete, I would refer the member, and indeed all members of this House, to what the former minister of state and leader of the government in the House of Commons stated on February 26, 2003, with respect to which document constitutes the official budgetary policy of the government:

First, it is not the budget statement that is made in the House, that is the budget itself. It is the instrument that is tabled by the minister prior to him reading the budget statement. Mr. Speaker will no doubt know this as indeed would most hon. members. The document that was tabled in the House constitutes the budgetary document of the government.

The budget documents distributed to members in the lock-up, as well as the budget documents distributed to members in the House, are a courtesy to assist members in preparing for the budget debate. The official and complete budget document was tabled by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue on November 4, immediately preceding the budgetary speech.

It is for these reasons that neither allegation raised by the member for Joliette—Manawan constitutes a breach of the privilege of the members of this House.

That being said, the government is of the firm view that all members should be afforded the opportunity to be informed of the content of the budget as a courtesy to assist in the discharge of their parliamentary functions. As a result, the government will continue to work with all parties to ensure that they have the information they need, in the format of their preference, to assist them in their parliamentary functions.

The House resumed from November 7 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this place this morning to speak to the government's long-awaited budget. While the suspense built over the last six months waiting for this day, at the end of it, our biggest fears were realized and the disappointment was palpable. Canadians have been sold a bill of goods packaged up in promises and buzzwords, with the same tax-and-spend policies of the Liberals winning the day and a staggering $78-billion deficit, which, if the budget is passed, will be the largest in our nation's history outside of the COVID pandemic, a deficit larger than what the Prime Minister promised and double what his predecessor left behind.

Before I go any further, I note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.

This budget is strewn with measures under the same misguided understanding of economics and the notion that we can spend our way out of a deficit. Many Canadians expected better, given the Prime Minister's resume. He promised a generational budget, but the only way this qualifies as such is in the enormous amount of debt that it would leave to future generations. As author and commentator Kim Moody wrote on X, “this is a horrible budget that will cripple our future generations.” Saddling our children and grandchildren with higher and higher debt-servicing costs robs them of opportunity and would hamstring future Canadian governments.

The new Prime Minister is saying and doing the exact same things as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did. As a result, his government will produce the exact same results: low growth, low investment and higher inflation. At their core, the Liberals believe that for Canadians and Canadian companies to build, get things done, create jobs, prosper and pursue their dreams, the government must be in control.

However, what actually happens when a government, especially a Liberal government, gets involved and tries to control things? Investors stop investing. The Prime Minister promised more investment; the budget reveals investment is collapsing. Builders stop building. Companies have fled the country and are building in other parts of the world that directly compete with Canadian producers, for example, in oil and gas. Taxes are imposed, like the industrial carbon tax, which adds to the cost of doing business, making it difficult for Canadian companies to compete and discouraging any business considering moving to Canada. Jobs are lost, followed by higher unemployment, especially among young Canadians.

The impacts can be seen across this country. The farmers who produce food and the manufacturers who build things and create jobs in the riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek are being penalized. The industrial carbon tax, which will continue to increase over the next five years and beyond to 2050, keeps input costs high for our farmers. It drives up the cost of materials like steel and concrete, which are used in the construction of farm shops, manufacturing plants, farm implements and residential homes. It makes our producers and manufacturers less competitive with their international competitors.

By maintaining his industrial carbon tax, the Prime Minister is sending manufacturers in Humboldt, Englefeld and St. Brieux, just to name a few, a message. He is in effect saying to them and to those whose jobs rely on these businesses that he does not really like what they are doing, so he will make it difficult for them to continue doing it.

Similarly, what is the message the industrial carbon tax sends to our resource sectors in Saskatchewan? Rather than creating the right conditions for these sectors to flourish and contribute to our economy, the Liberal government treats them like a bank machine where it can make tax withdrawals over and over again, taking money out of income-generating activities and putting it into a bigger bureaucracy.

Conservatives offered to work with the government to support Canadians and ensure a positive, hopeful and affordable future, one where our economy can respond to international threats from a place of strength, where our farmers can ship their products to new markets and where our manufacturers can compete and sell their goods both south of the border and around the world. Instead, the Liberals have decided to continue with their high deficits despite promising to spend less.

The Prime Minister made a promise to cap spending at $62 billion and broke it. He promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio and instead is raising it along with inflation. In fact, with this budget, the Liberals are spending $90 billion more than was previously committed. That is a $5,400 increase that will come out of the pockets of every Canadian household. That is $5,400 of new spending this year alone for Canadian households.

This budget fails to meet the moment. Fitch Ratings sent out a warning just a day after the budget was released that the constant expansion of fiscal spending by the Liberal government is putting pressure on Canada's credit rating.

To add insult to injury, after tabling the budget and asking Saskatchewanians to make more sacrifices, the finance minister headed off to a lavish “Prudence and Prosecco” party hosted by lobbyists and Liberal insiders. Apparently, it is okay to ask others to sacrifice, just not themselves.

Under their new projected spending, the Liberals are planning to add an extra $321 billion to the national debt over the next five years. That is more than twice the $154 billion the Prime Minister's predecessor, Justin Trudeau, was projecting to add over the same period. The national debt has ballooned to the point where the entire amount the federal government collects from GST will be less than what Canadians are required to spend just to pay the interest on the national debt.

For residents of Saskatchewan, it means the Liberals will spend more money servicing the debt they created than they will send to the provinces in health transfer payments. This is on the heels of taxing schools and hospitals for heating during the winter for years, which was done until it was politically advantageous for them to end the consumer carbon tax.

After shackling our economy with regulations and red tape over the last 10 years, the Liberals' strategy remains the same. They refuse to repeal their anti-resource development legislation, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and plan to continue with their clean fuel standards tax, which will cost Canadians an extra 17¢ per litre on their gas.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau claimed that he was not spending but investing, campaigning on a promise of small deficits, but he immediately broke that promise. The current Prime Minister is maintaining the Liberals' unbroken record of broken promises to Canadians, but he has gone even further by changing the way he will account for his spending. By using an overly expansive definition of capital spending, the Liberals are giving the appearance of a balanced operating budget. If we bring their definition in line with international standards, they will not even deliver on their promise to balance their operational spending. Liberals refuse to get out of the way to let Canadians build, feed and house themselves.

In closing, the people of Saskatchewan and all Canadians deserve a federal government that gets out of the way so they can invest in Canada's economy, build for the future and feed and house themselves. They deserve the opportunity to earn livelihoods, to engineer and create with Canadian steel, to grow Canadian food to feed Canadians and the world, and to buy a home of their choosing. They deserve a government that does not gamble away their future with large inflationary deficits and taxes on their livelihoods. They deserve affordable homes with affordable groceries in an affordable life.

Budget 2025 ignores the challenges people in Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek are facing. It is a budget that delivers for wealthy insiders, bondholders and multinationals. It will drive up inflation, will cost Canadians more in interest on the national debt than we collect in GST or spend on health care transfers, and will saddle our children and our children's children with paying for the Liberals' “buy now and have someone else pay for it later” policies. The bottom line is the Prime Minister has failed to deliver on his promises.